Gun Lawyer

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

Gun Lawyer is a news podcast hosted by Evan Nappen, Esq, with 300 episodes on record and a Required Pod Score of 80.

Evan Nappen, Esq hosts Gun Lawyer, a news show with 300 episodes published.

Our AI reads these to draft pitches. Use them as grounding for a pitch that cites a real guest and a specific topic.

• 

  Gun Lawyer

  Episode 305-BACK TO BASICS

  Aug 30, 202640 min

    Episode 305-BACK TO BASICS Also Available On Searchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 9 Gun Lawyer — Episode 305 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Gun laws, New Jersey, Machine guns, Handguns, Rifles, Shotguns, Assault firearms, Legal exemptions, Carry permits, Firearm ID, Second Amendment, Defensive use, CDC data, Gun rights, Application errors SPEAKERS Evan Nappen, Speaker 2 Evan Nappen 00:18 I’m Evan Nappen, and welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, my cohort in crime, Teddy, will not be joining us on the show today because Teddy is a brand new daddy. That’s right, he’s a father of a beautiful baby girl, which of course makes me a grandfather. Oh my God, I can’t even believe I’m saying that. She is just cute as a button, and I’m not just saying that because it’s my granddaughter. She really is. Her name is Alianna, and we are all so excited and happy about this. I can’t even begin to tell you. But Teddy has got his hands full with his beautiful wife and his beautiful new daughter, so I will be flying solo today with you. Evan Nappen 01:17 at I want to talk about is something important for gun owners in New Jersey to know, and even outside New Jersey. And that is the basics of how New Jersey bans all guns, and then creates a legal system that essentially allows and permits possession by exemption. I think this is why the entire foundation of New Jersey gun laws can eventually be completely wiped out because it takes what is a constitutional right and just reverses how that right is supposed to work. But nonetheless, the law is something you need to understand in New Jersey. And for those who don’t live in New Jersey, you want to understand this so you don’t ever see this happen in your jurisdiction. Evan Nappen 02:18 he place to begin is under New Jersey law, under N.J.S. 2C:39-5 (Unlawful possession of weapons.). Now, the 39-5. gun laws in New Jersey are where you see basically every firearm banned. Then the exemptions get created in two ways that essentially permit limited possession. It’s really insane when you think that a constitutional right is treated in this way, but yet it is. So, let’s take a look, beginning with 39-5., 2C:39-5. Now, subsection a. is a ban on machine guns, and what it says there is that any person who knowingly has in his possession any machine gun or any instrument or device adaptable for use as a machine gun, without being licensed to do so pursuant to (2C:)58-5, is guilty of a crime of the second degree. So, the only way to possess a machine gun in New Jersey is if you have a 58-5. machine gun license, and the machine gun license historically has been an impossibility to obtain. Page – 2 – of 9 Evan Nappen 03:51 But interestingly, I think we’re going to see some serious challenges because the way New Jersey structured this law, the machine gun license required you first to get a carry permit. At the time, virtually no one could get a (New Jersey permit to) carry. Now, over 100,000 Jerseyans and non-residents do have carry permits, and the standard that you’re left with the machine gun license is quite bizarre of having to show somehow it’s in the public interest for you to have it. And that’s absolutely contrary to Bruen, but for now, the number one thing to keep in mind is the machine gun prohibition does not have any other exemptions within New Jersey law. Only this license is the exemption. And when I say no other exemption, I’m talking about for an otherwise law-abiding citizen to possess. There are exemptions for certain military, police, etc. There’s exemptions even for dealers, but we’re not focused on that. We’re focused on other normal, law-abiding, average citizens. So, forget about it for machine guns. Evan Nappen 05:02 But let’s move now to the b. section of 39-5. Now that’s one that applies to a hell of a lot of folks in New Jersey. The b. section of 39-5 is handguns. Listen to how New Jersey bans handguns. New Jersey’s law says: Handguns. Any person who knowingly has in his possession any handgun, including any antique handgun, without having first obtained a permit to carry the same as provided in (2C:)58-4., is guilty of a crime of the second degree. Let that sink in, folks. The only way you can lawfully possess a handgun, possess. We’re not even talking about carry. The only way to lawfully possess that handgun on the face of the statute that prohibits the possession of a handgun is if you have a (New Jersey) permit to carry a handgun. Evan Nappen 06:06 Now I know there are a lot of folks out there that don’t have permits to carry that simply acquired a handgun with a permit to purchase a handgun. So, how can this be? How can you lawfully possess that handgun if you don’t have a carry permit when the statute requires you to have a carry permit? And if you don’t have a carry permit, you’re guilty of unlawful possession of a handgun right on the face of the statute, which is an extraordinarily serious offense. Unlawful possession of a handgun in New Jersey is a second-degree crime. New Jersey doesn’t use the term felony. They use the term crime, but it’s the equivalent of a felony. You can think of it in that way. It carries up to 10 years in State Prison, and it has a minimum mandatory three and a half years under what is called the Graves Act. Where if you’re convicted of unlawful possession of a handgun after a trial, a judge has absolutely zero discretion and must impose at least three and a half years as a minimum component of your sentence with no ability to be paroled. You do every day of that three and a half years before you’re even eligible for parole. Evan Nappen 07:31 So, since you have to have a carry to possess it, what about everyone who doesn’t? Well, the answer to that lies in the exemptions, and we’ll get to the exemptions in a moment because we’re going to talk about exemptions. But right now, we’re just talking about the statute itself that mandates a (New Jersey) carry permit in order to legally possess a handgun. Under subsection c., is rifles and shotguns, and there it says: any person who knowingly has in his possession any rifle or shotgun without having first obtained a firearm purchaser ID card in accordance with (2C:)58-3, is guilty of a crime of the third degree. So, that makes it a third degree crime, up to five years in State Prison, if you have a shotgun or Page – 3 – of 9 rifle without a firearm ID card. The law goes further to say, unless otherwise permitted by law, any person who knowingly has in his possession any loaded rifle or shotgun is guilty of a crime in third degree. So, what about those that possess rifles or shotguns without a firearms ID card? Well, on the face of this statute, you’re looking at up to five years in State Prison. However, we’re going to discuss the exemptions, and the exemptions are critical in understanding how these possessory laws actually work. Even though the exemptions are technically a defense that you, as a law-abiding citizen, can be put to the proofs where you have to prove the defense. Evan Nappen 09:03 Then there’s subsection d. of 39-5. Subsection d. is “other weapons”, and that says: 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. So, that’s up to a year and a half in State Prison for any “other weapon”, anything that may be construed as a weapon, if it’s possessed under circumstances not manifestly appropriate for such lawful uses as it may have. Look at that vague, ridiculous language there. So, anything that can be construed to be a weapon, and then the circumstances not manifestly appropriate become subject for a jury trial. So that 12 people who aren’t smart enough to avoid jury duty get to decide whether those circumstances were manifestly appropriate or not. Isn’t that cute? And you need to further know that New Jersey case law, through Kelly and Montalvo, they found that the so-called circumstance is not manifestly appropriate for such lawful uses as it may have. In Kelly, the court specifically found that self-defense was not a manifestly appropriate lawful use. Imagine that! You cannot preemptively arm yourself with a weapon under Kelly. Self-defense doesn’t cut it. But then Kelly got modified with Montalvo. If it’s in your home, if it’s in your home and you have it for self-defense, then the court actually finally came to its senses, at least on that, and said, yeah, self-defense possession in your home is manifestly appropriate circumstances, but not outside the home. So, we still need a case that says outside the home, where you’re lawfully allowed to use self-defense, where you have a right to self-defense. That even outside the home, it’s a manifestly appropriate use for any other weapon. We’ll talk more about that one in the future. Okay, but there you go. Those are the prohibitions. Evan Nappen 11:32 Then, of course, we have the infamous subsection f., and that’s where assault firearms are banned. It says: any person who knowingly has in his possession an assault firearm is guilty of a crime of the second degree. Again, that draconian Graves Act, up to 10 years, minimum mandatory three and a half. Except if the assault firearm is licensed pursuant to (2C:)58-5. And by the way, that’s the same license as a machine gun license, which virtually no one could ever get. Or rendered inoperable, and that render inoperable period went from May of ’90 to May of ’91. And you had to do a rendered inoperable form. If you didn’t do it then, you’re out of the box. You couldn’t do it. Or if it was registered. Again, that registration period expired back in ’90. It may have ’90 to ’91 as well. So, assault firearms became prohibited with no way of making them lawful after May of ’91, unless you could somehow get an assault firearm license, which was a de facto impossibility, a de facto ban. Evan Nappen 12:52 In fact, as determined in the federal court decision Coalition versus Florio that I brought, it was determined that it was a de facto ban. So, that license is known, you know, essentially it was viewed as Page – 4 – of 9 fake in so many words. You know, yeah, good luck. Like it was just structured to be an impossibility and even recognized as such by essentially by the court. So, if you had an assault firearm, there was nothing that could be done there. Exemptions that we’re going to discuss next do not apply to assault firearms. he exemptions only apply to B, C, and D. So remember, B. is the ban on handguns unless you have a (New Jersey) carry permit. C. is a ban on rifles and shotguns unless you have a firearms ID card, and D. is a ban on “other weapons” without manifest lawful purpose. Evan Nappen 13:52 However, what the statute in 39-5 does not reference, but you need to know, is that under N.J.S. 2C:39-6, you will find an entire host of exemptions. There’s exemptions for law enforcement, military, all kinds, tons of exemptions. But the exemptions that have the most bearing to the average, law-abiding citizen, they’re found in subsection e. and subsection f. of the exemptions. Let me read you what these exemptions say. The exemptions say that nothing in subsection b., c., and d. of 39-5, so that is handguns, rifles and shotguns, and other weapons under the 39-5 ban, shall be construed to prevent a person keeping or carrying about the person’s place of business, residence, premises or other land owned or possessed by the person, any firearm, or from carrying the same, in the manner specified in subsection g., which is unloaded and in a case or in the trunk, or in a securely wrapped package, from any place of purchase to the person’s residence or place of business, between the person’s dwelling and place of business, between one place of business or residence and another when moving, or between the person’s dwelling or place of business and place where the firearms are repaired, for the purpose of repair. For the purposes of this section, a place of business shall be deemed to be a fixed location. Evan Nappen 15:42 So, subsection e. of 39-6 exempts law-abiding citizens in New Jersey for possession of handguns, rifles and shotguns, and other weapons in their home, and you do not need a (New Jersey) carry permit. You do not need a firearms ID card. You do not need to have manifest lawful purpose, so-called. As long as you are simply possessing in your home, you are exempted from those requirements under 39-5. It is a law that allows possession by exemption unless one has licenses, and if you have licenses, then you’re exempt under the face of the statute. And if you have a license and you’re within exemption, you have double protection, essentially. And the exemption under subsection e. applies to home. It applies to place of business. Now that means a business you actually own. It’s not just the place you work. It’s got to be your place of business that you own. The courts have narrowly interpreted it to mean that. Not even a place you just manage. You’ve got to be an owner. It’s got to be your business. But if it is, then you have exemption there. You’re exempted for moving between your residences while moving, etc. That’s the exemption under subsection e. Evan Nappen 17:22 Then there’s an exemption under subsection f., and f. again exempts b., c., and d. of 39-5; handguns, rifles and shotguns, and other weapons under 39-5. ere the exemptions say that those prohibitions shall not apply to any member of a rifle or pistol club organized in accordance with the rules prescribed by the National Board for Promotion of Rifle Practice, in going to or from a place of target practice, carrying firearms necessary for target practice, provided the club has filed a copy of its charter with the superintendent and annually submits its list of members to the superintendent, and provided further that Page – 5 – of 9 the firearms are carried in a manner specified in subsection g., which is, of course, cased and unloaded. Evan Nappen 18:08 Here’s another exemption under f. under subsection (2). A person carrying a firearm or knife in the woods or fields, or upon the waters of the state for the purpose of hunting, target practice, or fishing, provided that the firearm is or knife is legal and appropriate for hunting and fishing purposes in the state, and the person has in the person’s possession a valid hunting license, or with respect to freshwater fishing, a valid fishing license. Number three, a person transporting any firearm or knife while traveling directly to or from place for purpose of hunting, fishing, provided you have a valid license, or directly to or from the target range, or other authorized place, for the purpose of practice match target trap skeet shooting expeditions. Provided during that whole time you’re transporting, you’re transporting pursuant to subsection g. Evan Nappen 19:18 So, the takeaway here is how New Jersey bans essentially all guns, and how the matrix is set up so that there are exemptions. Exemptions that we’ve just talked about. But keep in mind that the exemptions are a defense. The burden becomes on the defendant to have to prove that you’re within those exemptions. Otherwise you see bans. Bans that have only exemptions by way of licensing, unless you fall within those specific statutory exemptions. I think that structure is frankly disgusting as to how a constitutional right is and has been treated by New Jersey. But because of that structure, I also believe that we have a fantastic opportunity now as we see the empowerment of the Second Amendment to finally take out and take down the very foundation of New Jersey’s oppressive gun laws. Evan Nappen 20:36 By the way, I want to give you just a little heads up about a threat that is apparently lurking. This is weird and odd. I can’t hammer it down any more than what I’m going to tell you right now. But the news aggregate source called the Daily Caller, some of you may be aware of it, had an article that says “Anti-2A Group Plots New Gun Ban in New Jersey”. (https://dailycaller.com/2026/08/26/anti-2a-group-plots-new-gun-ban-in-blue-state/) This is August 26, 2026, by Harold Hutchison, who is a Second Amendment reporter that says the gun-control organization March for Our Lives, that’s the group headed up by that A one a hole of David Hogg. His group sent out an email fundraiser announcing plans to pass a weapons ban in New Jersey. And reading this is just bizarro. Remember Hogg has made his entire life and career over being a perpetual victim from the Parkland atrocity, and he’s an insane Left wing activist. By the way, if you’ve ever seen the stuff that he puts out. But anyway, this group uses this term “weapons of war”, “weapons of war”, and says, “The proposed weapons ban in New Jersey is a vital step toward getting weapons off our streets and protecting our neighborhoods from preventable tragedy.” This is a fundraiser being done by this group. Evan Nappen 22:49 When you look at the actual screenshot here from March for Our Lives, here’s what this screenshot says. From March for Our Lives. “We’re bumping this to the top of your inbox because we have a genuine, high-impact opportunity to push real gun safety forward — and we can’t afford to miss it. Right now, New Jersey lawmakers have a chance to pass critical legislation banning weapons of war from Page – 6 – of 9 our communities. When our generation first marched in 2018, people told us we were just angry kids who didn’t understand how politics worked. But together, we’ve proved that hope isn’t just a feeling — it’s an action.” And then it goes on to say, “From helping establish first-ever White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention to passing landmark federal legislation, we’ve seen what happens when young people organize and demand a better future. Passing this weapons ban in New Jersey isn’t just about one state — it sets a benchmark for the entire nation and proves that progress is unstoppable when we stand together.” Then it all says, “Will you take 10 seconds to add your name and show support for the NJ weapons ban today?” Evan Nappen 24:19 Okay. I’ve got to tell you, folks. I have no clue what the hell they’re talking about. First of all, New Jersey already has the most egregious assault firearm ban on the books and that has just taken a death punch by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals en banc with the magnificent decision wiping it out under the Second Amendment with both mags and guns. Now, granted, it is stayed at the moment because the Supreme Court has also taken up this issue. But what the hell are they talking about? New Jersey’s law is on its deathbed. It’s on life support, barely. Soon to die, and they’re talking about legislators in New Jersey promoting some weapons ban that they’re fundraising on. This is either complete fraud, which who knows with those people, or absolute mistake that they’ve confused states, I guess. Or maybe, just maybe, something else is cooking up in the New Jersey legislature. Maybe they’re tipped off to it, and I can&#821

  ListenShow Notes
• 

  Gun Lawyer

  Episode 296-Trump Pushes National Constitutional Carry

  Jun 28, 202641 min

    Episode 296-Trump Pushes National Constitutional Carry Also Available On Searchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 12 Gun Lawyer — Episode 296 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Second Amendment, pistol brace, bump stock, Glock ban, iron pipeline, national constitutional carry, gun rights, anti-gun laws, gun safety, Hollywood depiction, firearm training, gun laws, civil rights, gun ownership, gun violence. SPEAKERS Speaker 3, Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen Evan Nappen 00:18 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:21 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:22 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, Teddy, what have you brought to the table today? Teddy Nappen 00:33 Well, I’m always amazed by every single time they always try to say Trump’s not doing enough. Like you hear the horseshoe, right? It’s amazing the idea of just, oh, he hasn’t done enough, or they do the goal post move. Where they move it. They say he hasn’t done anything, or they move in and say he hasn’t done enough. I keep hearing this all the time about people with regards to the Second Amendment. They always try to highlight that stupid thing regarding the, what was it? The pistol brace at the time, because the writing on the wall that they try. Evan Nappen 01:16 Well, remember, keep in mind that with the pistol brace originally, NRA was not real keen on them either. You may remember, you know. So, Trump was trying to also go along with what the organizations themselves were doing, remember, because the brace thing was. But what you eventually saw, and what you’re seeing now, just on that is the elimination of the brace being an SBR, and that whole Merrick Garland insanity of having to register pistol braces. They put the reg forward on their, which should be official shortly, getting rid of that completely. We’re going to, on another shows talk about anybody if you happened to register a braced pistol as an SBR, what you need to do. Because that’s all history, and Trump has ensured that it’s now history, and let’s give credit there for that. Page – 2 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 02:35 And they always highlight the bump stock thing. By the way, the writing was on the wall of why Obama wanted to let that through was because they were going to equate ARs to machine guns, and that led to where. Evan Nappen 02:50 That’s right. So, remember the anti-rights, the oppressionists, they always have a game plan. So, their game plan was, look, if we have the bump stock thing going, then we can claim that semi-automatics are like machine guns. Then we can go after them and get a ban on semi-automatics as machine guns. And what Trump was doing politically in that sense was thwarting their political move. Now, if you say, ‘Oh, well, that isn’t.. how do you know that’s their plan? Or that was.. well, I’ll tell you what. If you want to see that as their plan, you could see it in action right now as they ban Glocks. California just banned Glock pistols, and what is your basis for banning Glocks? Oh, well, they’re easily convertible with Glock switches, you see. So, this is always the gambit of the Second Amendment oppressionists. Now we ban handguns that are perfectly legal, the most popular handgun in America, and we ban it, how? Oh, because you can put an unlawful Glock switch, which turns it into select fire. These switches are in and of themselves, just possession of a switch, is the same as possessing a machine gun. The switches are banned! But they use it as the pretext to expand it, and then ban the handguns themselves. Evan Nappen 04:35 You also saw them attempt this with the so-called iron pipeline. Teddy Nappen 04:40 Operation Fast and Furious. Evan Nappen 04:40 They were laying the groundwork for the iron pipeline. They wanted to say, oh, American guns, semi-autos, are going to Mexico to the narco terrorists, and all. And what did they do? They changed the 4473 to ask, are you Hispanic or not? Like, why are they asking that? And then they had multiple rifle reporting on border states. Why are they doing that? And then, of course, they do Operation Fast and Furious, so they could paint the picture to then push a gun ban based on the iron pipeline down south. But lo and behold, they step on their own toes here. We’ll use that word instead. And Operation Fast and Furious blows up in their face because they’re selling the guns themselves to the narco terrorists, and end up killing a federal agent, no less. So, that plan went all to hell. Evan Nappen 05:35 But you see, this is what they do. They lay the groundwork with these things, and that’s really what was going on there, on that. But with this Administration, we’ve never had an administration this pro-Second Amendment rights that it’s ever been president, ever. They’re now saying to California, get rid of that Glock ban or the Justice Department of the federal government is going after California. In other words, we finally have the federal government not pursuing oppression of the Second Amendment, but of enforcing our rights and preserving and fighting for our rights. They did it, and they’re doing it in all different facets. They’re doing it by administrative reg changes, 34 great changes. They’re doing it by Page – 3 – of 12 the litigation. They’re doing it by getting a focus of civil rights and putting the Second Amendment into that category. Evan Nappen 06:40 And now President Trump, just recently at a rally in Pennsylvania, said he wants to see and is pushing for National Constitutional Carry. Now, keep in mind this is beyond national reciprocity. National Constitutional Carry is the ability to lawfully carry your handgun anywhere in the United States with no permission slip. Ending the requirements, in effect, for permits. Or at least having it so that there’s national reciprocity that respects the majority of states that don’t require any permit. So that with National Constitutional Carry, a person who is a resident of a Constitutional carry state can carry, for example, in New York or New Jersey and all these oppression states with no permit, because it will be national. If you think about what the Second Amendment means, the right to keep and bear arms bearing is carrying, and the Second Amendment means that very thing. And that’s why it’s constitutional. Teddy Nappen 08:17 You also have to remember, Dad, like think back to Shaneen Allen. If this law comes into play, that would have avoided that entire BS that she went through. Her only crime was crossing the Franklin Bridge. Evan Nappen 08:40 Without the piece of paper that New Jersey recognizes. That’s right! Think of how many completely law-abiding citizens are turned into criminals, have their life destroyed, forced into a criminal judicial system for exercising a Constitutional right. They weren’t committing any crimes. They weren’t robbing, stealing, raping. No, no, no, nothing. Just, oh, you have a gun, and we’re not recognizing your right in this jurisdiction. That’s why this has to go. That’s why it’s a civil right, and it’s really great to see President Trump pushing it again. Teddy Nappen 09:21 If they were robbing, stealing, or raping, they would just be let off, no bail, no nothing. Evan Nappen 09:26 Well, if they’re an illegal alien, of course. Teddy Nappen 09:30 Yes, of course. Evan Nappen 09:31 And not only that, they would not even cooperate with ICE to have them deported, but that’s separate. Teddy Nappen 09:38 Yeah. Page – 4 – of 12 Evan Nappen 09:38 We’re talking here about law-abiding Americans with rights that are getting oppressed. What’s really interesting is that President Trump is pushing it now, making it an issue. Not just leaving it in the shadows, but making it a specific issue out there. And at the same time, he’s pushing for the Save Act, so we have integrity in our voting system. He’s pushing like never before to get rid of the filibuster. The filibuster is what is stopping the Republican-controlled Congress from being able to pass the agenda that we voted for. It’s because of the filibuster. As it stands now, you need 60 votes, and that lets the oppressors still have power to stop these laws from going through. And you know, if the Democrats ever gained power again, the first thing they’re going to do is get rid of the filibuster. So, cut it out. I didn’t see the filibuster in our Constitution. It talks about majority for passing legislation in each house. Okay, that’s what it is. So, this filibuster thing is a contrivance, and it needs to go. It is time, because we can get these laws through, and we can get the changes that we need on so many fronts, including the Second Amendment rights. It’s very important, critical. Teddy Nappen 11:30 Yeah, and this also comes from this. It’s right an article from MSN. (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-says-administration-is-working-on-nationwide-right-to-carry-legislation/ar-AA26oxMC) When he was unveiling the new aircraft at Andrews Air Force base, one of the attendees asked about it, and he said, “Yep, we’re working on it. That sends it right there, because that puts it in. Not only you just said not to the national spot, but it also had all the gun rights oppressionists jumping up, screaming, no, no, no. Like going, like just immediately. It’s so funny. Evan Nappen 12:07 It’s (Senator) Mike Lee’s bill. (https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/4013/text) (Senator) Mike Lee has the bill, and they are working on it. This is a major, major law. It’s probably the single most important pro-Second Amendment rights law that we could pass in modern times. First of all, it will have a wonderful effect on reducing crime. We’re facing these criminals that were let loose into our country through four years of Biden and his policies, plus the blue state policies of the revolving door with no cash bails and all that. So, we need to be able to defend ourselves. But it also will make it so that carry is every individual, who chooses to have a firearm to protect themselves, and this will make it much simpler for individuals to do that very thing. Has a vested interest in preserving and fighting for their Second Amendment rights. It will be the biggest game changer that we could look for. Evan Nappen 13:22 Because as we evolve in our Second Amendments, where the base used to be the strongest base of our gun rights was hunters, it really has shifted. There’s less hunting and less hunting lands, unfortunately, and it shifted to a major uptick, tremendous uptick, in firearms for self-defense and personal protection and individual carry. This will solidify it to the ultimate, the ultimate lifestyle of Constitutional carry for all. That’s what we want to see. We will have a safer society. We’ll have a safer country. Individuals will be able to protect their families, their themselves, their loved ones. It is absolutely the best thing we could do for public safety and the protection of our sacred Constitutional rights. Page – 5 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 14:32 I will say, as well, I love just.. I pulled this from Giffords. (https://giffords.org/press-release/2026/06/giffords-condemns-trumps-push-for-national-right-to-carry-legislation/) Gabby Giffords, of course, who is one of the.. you know, out of.. I would say. Would you say Gifford is probably the smallest out of the gun rights of oppressors? There’s still a factor, but out of comparatively, compared to, like. Evan Nappen 14:49 Well, The Trace and Bloomturd and his organization probably has the most influence, but then you know. Teddy Nappen 15:00 They fund each other, and yeah, they do fund them, too. Evan Nappen 15:04 But, you know, the whole thing that also is true is that the anti-Second Amendment rights groups themselves are not really made of that many members. They don’t have anywhere near the passion and the numbers of which there are gun owners in America and guns in America. They like to gloss over that little fact. They’re basically small but well heeled, well financed. Slick and propagandized, and have an agenda of billionaires that they try to jam down the overwhelming majority of Americans’ throats that actually support the Constitution, and particularly the Second Amendment. So, that’s really, I mean, you don’t see it in terms of numbers. Now, they’ll hold rallies or whatever, and they’ll pay people to turn out. They’ll link in with other groups that are Left wing and such to make their numbers appear big. But there’s a tremendous difference between the pro-Second Amendment rights forces people and the anti-Second Amendment rights forces people. Teddy Nappen 16:32 And it’s also they never changed the argument. Because right here, right out of her own quote, concealed carry reciprocity is a dangerously reckless proposal, and would jeopardize the lives of the children, families, and police. People should not have guns who have no training, who have never passed a background check, and would be able to carry concealed weapons in every community, no questions asked. Evan Nappen 17:01 Yes, and that is absolute garbage. The majority of America already has Constitutional Carry. In the majority of states, 70% of the land mass of the U.S., you can carry now with no permit. So, obviously it’s flawed. I mean, look, murder rates have gone down nationally. But, of course, in the Blue cities, where they have the failure to cooperate with the federal government, where crime is out of control, it’s problematic there. But overall, guess what? The incredible decline in violent crime and murder rates corresponds brilliantly to civilian expansion of carry. That’s what you don’t hear. When they talk about how great we’re doing overall in terms of stopping and fighting violent crime and how those statistics show that we’ve improved, it correlates, it follows expansion of our ability to carry, either by shall-issue permit and/or Constitutional Carry. That’s why a national carry will enshrine it and make it the law of the land. We’ll see even better statistics and less people being victims instead of defenders. Page – 6 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 18:42 You always have to go to the fact, and they always say, if it saves one life. How about 2 million to 2.5 million in defensive uses of firearms that have saved lives per year. Evan Nappen 18:54 Right! Teddy Nappen 18:55 Just going off, you can even ignore the correlation / causation factor, and you can just cite to the fact that 2 million lives are saved from defensive uses of a firearm. If they go for the “save one life”, we’ve got to protect the children, yet it saves lives. Just flat out argument to that. But no, they always go to you’re going to be arming criminals and traffickers and lead to more gun deaths. All right. That’s ridiculous. Evan Nappen 19:24 Here’s the bottom line. It’s real simple. You can sum it up real easy. Guns Save Lives. Do you need to write that down? I mean, Guns Save Lives. And unfortunately, the cohorts of the oppressionists is the media. The mainstream, lame stream media that loves to push the agenda of the billionaire elitists that want our rights destroyed and that’s a fact. Guns Save Lives. And when you can, as an individual, protect yourself and your loved ones. Anyone who’s a gun owner knows that feeling of security and safety when you’re trained and know how to shoot and have your own firearm. You know that you can do it. And that is what enshrines it to the person, what puts it right in their heart. They go, yeah, I get it. I get it. Especially individuals who have actually had to use firearms, or they realize the famous saying of “I’d rather have a gun and not need it than need it and not have it”. And those that have needed one and not had it. Yeah, they paid a price, and those that have had it when they needed, it saved lives. Teddy Nappen 20:57 It makes me think back to, I don’t know if you remember seeing this. Do you know who Jamal Bowman is? Mister pull the Fire Alarm, because I can’t open a door. Evan Nappen 21:05 Yeah, right. That guy. Teddy Nappen 21:07 I remember him having a shouting match. It was like a couple years ago. It was him and Massie. He was arguing about, arguing for, more restrictive guns measures. Calling Republicans cowards, and he was screaming, and say, ‘You want more guns, you’re gonna lead to more death. Like, just screaming, screaming that it would cause more death. Screaming, ‘You’re all cowards. You don’t save children. Like, just screaming about it. (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/democrat-calls-republicans-cowards-tense-exchange-gun-violence-rcna77342) They do not care about the statistics. They do not care about the facts and the logic behind it. They just see weapon bad. Weapon is used by the oppression. Page – 7 – of 12 Evan Nappen 21:46 Wait. You’re telling me that Democrat issues are emotion-based? I find that hard to believe, Teddy. Teddy Nappen 21:53 I know, right. Whoops, sorry. Evan Nappen 21:55 Yeah, at least. Teddy Nappen 21:56 They banned logic in ’84. Evan Nappen 21:58 I guess they did. They did. Well, Teddy, let me talk about our good friends at WeShoot, our favorite range. It’s where you and I shoot and get our training and got our certificates, so that we can carry. WeShoot is a range in Lakewood, New Jersey, and a great facility. They are running an America 250th Anniversary sale. That’s right. This is a pretty cool sale, actually. They are offering 15% off all of their pre-loved firearms. You know what a pre-loved firearm is, right? Fifteen percent off for any of those, and 25% off their Heritage Collection. These are all these guns. There’s tremendously great guns that they have for sales, the 15% off sale across the board. You’ve got to check out what they have at WeShoot. They have an amazing selection and that’s of course on their pre-loved guns. Their Heritage Collection, man, is 25% off, and that is some sweet guns. Let me tell you. The Heritage Collection has, for example, I’ll just tell you about a few. Fox Sterlingworth shotgun, Fox “A” shotgun. You know, we’re talking these beauties. Fox AEs, and all these Richards. W. Richards SXs, you know, they’re the 10 gauge Richards. Fox CES, Parker Brothers, Trojan, the fevers, the nitros. We’re talking all the LC Smiths, Parkers. The classics of the scattergun world, man. The best of the best, and those are 25% off. Evan Nappen 24:17 So, you want to go to WeShoot and get your training there. It’s a great facility with a great indoor range. Conveniently located right off the Parkway, right in Lakewood, New Jersey. Central Jersey. Our ranges are critical. They are a resource. I mean, what good is it if you can’t shoot? If you don’t have any place to shoot? We’re lucky we have a great place to shoot. It’s called WeShoot. You can check out their website – weshootusa.com. Brilliant website with fantastic photography. They treat their customers so well. Teddy and I love WeShoot, and I know you will, too. Check out weshootusa.com. Evan Nappen 25:03 Let me also shamelessly promote my book, New Jersey Gun Law. It’s the bible of New Jersey gun law. It’s over 500 pages. It’s over 120 topics, all question and answer, maki

  ListenShow Notes
• 

  Gun Lawyer

  Episode 295-Bang and Bong… You just got Both

  Jun 21, 202637 min

    Episode 295-Bang and Bong… You just got Both Also Available On Searchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 12 Gun Lawyer Transcript – Episode 295 SUMMARY KEYWORDS Supreme Court ruling, Second Amendment, marijuana prohibition, gun rights, NRA, ACLU, Justice Thomas, Commerce Clause, firearm regulation, self-defense, Bruen framework, gun violence, international gun laws, warning shots, New Jersey gun law. SPEAKERS Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen, Speaker 2 Evan Nappen 00:17 I’m Evan Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:19 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:21 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. Well, just now we just got word of the Supreme Court handing down the ruling in the Hemani case, and this is really quite a startling win. (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1234_g2bh.pdf) Not necessarily because it was a win, but because it was a unanimous win! What we have is the U.S. Supreme Court in a nine to zero opinion essentially determining the unconstitutionality of marijuana creating a gun prohibitor under federal law. So, for these years you’ve had issues, and we’ve talked about it on the show, where folks that had even a medical marijuana weed card, or they used, or they had any kind of history of prior possession/conviction for misdemeanor marijuana. All that has caused just a lot of folks to not be able to exercise their Second Amendment rights. In the past, we actually coined the term from the show, “Bang or Bong, you can’t have both”. Because of how they, they being the Government, how the Government was interpreting this. To the degree where federal dealers were issued memoranda from ATF telling them that they could not sell to these folks that admitted to using all this regarding marijuana and laid out this as enforceable prohibition. Evan Nappen 02:15 And by the way, this is also the thing that Hunter Biden was prosecuted for. Hunter Biden’s gun case is essentially this issue as well. So, we’re happy to say, and not necessarily for any reason because of Hunter Biden, but because it is a win for the Second Amendment. To see a unanimous decision. Let that sink in, folks. Every judge on the Supreme Court agreeing with an enforcement of the Second Amendment. Just that alone, regardless of the issue, is really great to see. Just that. Here there were interesting bed fellows, as they say. We had the lawsuit challenge, etc., the legal action, joined the NRA and the ACLU on the same side. So, we had both the NRA and the ACLU on the same side arguing for this. To not prohibit individuals from Second Amendment rights. So, this is very significant, and it’s interesting. Page – 2 – of 12 Evan Nappen 03:39 Judge Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court. In the facts of this case, Hemani used marijuana a few times a week, and because of that the Government claimed that he’s automatically banned from possessing a firearm under federal law. And because Hemani admitted that he owns a gun, despite the ban, the Government was now seeking to prosecute him. To imprison him for up to 15 years and disarm him for life. This case here posed that question, whether the Government’s prosecution of Hemani is consistent with the Second Amendment. A unanimous decision found that it was not consistent with the Second Amendment. So, Teddy, what do you think about this decision? Teddy Nappen 04:40 Well, for me, as soon as this case came out, I had to look. What did Judge Thomas say? Because he’s the funniest of them all. Evan Nappen 04:49 Well, that’s true. Teddy Nappen 04:50 I had to go right to his opinion. And of course, Justice Thomas, being the greatest justice to have ever lived, and the fact that he is an originalist to perfection. Of course, he said we did not go far enough! Particularly, and I love how he writes this. “I agree with the Court that 922(g)(3) violates the Second Amendment as applied to respondent Ali Hemani, and I join it’s opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to another issue: As a matter of both original meaning and this Court’s precedents . . .” It appears to exceed Congressional enumerated power and regulate interstate commerce. He attacks the commerce clause throughout this. He even highlights the fact that the Government, if the firearms possession by the drug user had previously traveled through interstate commerce, the commerce clause does not authorize Congress to regulate or ban possession of any item that has ever been offered for sale or cross state lines. He cites Alderman. His dissent is on the denial of certiorari, where this conversion of congressional authority under the commerce clause to a general police power is sort retained by the states. Evan Nappen 06:12 You see, this is really important, Teddy. Because what Judge Thomas is doing there is he’s going beyond. He’s looking at the power grab, the overreach of the power of interstate commerce. And ever since the expansion of that Wickard versus Filburn. (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/317/111/) Ever since the expansion of that, it basically empowered the Government, the federal Government, to do anything it wants, as long as they can make some tenuous argument that it somehow affects interstate commerce. And I’m really glad to see that he’s out there, at least as a voice trying to pull back that insane power grab that occurred back under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Teddy Nappen 06:58 As you’re reading through his opinion, too, he takes a bat directly to the congressional authority. He bashes the commerce clause directly of how. How is it that something travels, like, how does that fall Page – 3 – of 12 under interstate commerce when it’s not traveling between the states? He is going at it hard, outlining each bit case by case, showing the abuse by it. He even highlights how, I love this line, the gun possession statute issues in Lopez is not a regulation of economic activity, but a law to combat “crime and violence”, even at the local level. Literally calls it out. How is this economic activity when you’re just doing this for regulating crime? Evan Nappen 07:48 Oh yeah. Well, you know, in the decision, this is very interesting, they, they being the Court, outline their ruling, and why. And I think you’ll find it very interesting here, where they talk about that Mr. Hemani. He admitted his use of marijuana, and he knowingly possessed the gun in his home, being an “unlawful user of the substance”. And if you look at that, it seems to fit exactly what the law is prohibiting. And what the actual holding of the Supreme Court held that the Government’s prosecution of Hermani under 922 unlawful user provision is inconsistent with the Second Amendment. And here in the holding it actually says the Second Amendment protects the rights of all Americans, but they had that in quotes to keep and bear firearms for self-defense. So, there’s even an affirmation of the right to self-defense. They are citing Heller with that. Evan Nappen 09:15 Though, like most individual rights, it has its limits to determine when the Government infringes on the Second Amendment. The court begins by asking whether the amendment’s terms cover the conduct in question. If so, the Constitution presumptively protects it. That’s citing Bruen. To overcome the presumption, the Government bears the burden. The Government bears the burden of showing its regulatory efforts are consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. That is the test, and the burden is on the Government to have to show it. The Government need not point to a historical twin or precise historical precursor that’s from Rahimi, that’s the Rahimi case. Instead, the appropriate analysis involves considering whether the challenged regulation is consistent with the principles that underpin our regulatory tradition. The government may reason by analogy. This is where the battle comes in, in our fight for our Second Amendment rights Evan Nappen 10:35 Now, it says further, the Government accepts this framework, and they proceeded to argue from it. So, this is very exciting in terms of the test being applied. The court looking at the Government’s argument of traditional habitual drunkards losing their rights, and the court, through the opinion, just absolutely distinguishes between this marijuana ban and historical precedent concerning habitual drunkards. Then they also put into play about the decision being narrow. And here’s where, Teddy, what you just said about Justice Thomas, he wants it to be broad. But the decision itself says it’s narrow. It does not address efforts to ban addicts or those presently intoxicated from possessing a firearm. Then it also talks about whether individuals convicted of felonies could be prosecuted. So, they tried to contain it narrowly. But if you step back and just look at the big picture in regards to a nine to zero opinion on a gun rights issue, that to me is probably the most outstanding thing about it. We got the whole Court on board. Page – 4 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 12:21 I will say, if you go to Jackson’s “concurrent opinion”, she doesn’t even talk about the case. She literally spends the entire thing bashing Bruen. I was reading through it, and she literally just spends the entire thing in full. She says I write to emphasize my scrutiny. The court applies to the, we adopted Bruen be his “history and tradition metric”, which more rational way of assessing the Constituent’s regulations. Bruen is unworkable, and it creates such a vulnerability of inconsistent, arbitrary application. Oh, like most gun laws? Evan Nappen 13:01 Yeah. Well, keep in mind the politics here. She’s purposely trying to attack Thomas over Bruen. And yet, what she can’t stand is that she’s ruling in favor of the Second Amendment. But in so doing, it means that Bruen is being empowered here. She’s like the computer on Star Trek. She’s going to explode that it’s now affecting the issue of marijuana, and the ACLU is on this side. Yet, how could she actually use, you know, Thomas’s brilliance here, even though it’s what she believes is the right thing to do, but can’t give credit. So, it’s like, you know, she’s just exploding over it. But she still has to side with the full unanimous majority, and that’s why it is that astounding. Because even a justice like her, who is so blatantly politically and hardly viewed as an educated jurist here by comparison to so many of the others on the Court. This is what you see happen. So, it’s pretty good there. Evan Nappen 15:19 Like applying the Constitution instead of, “It’s a living document”, which it isn’t, and start applying that whole. Teddy Nappen 15:41 Fine, just no, just no, fine, fine. No 19th Amendment, got it. Like it’s so ridiculous. So, they only apply it when they choose to. Evan Nappen 15:53 Hey, but even with all that said. It was still nine to zero, in favor of 2A. So, for that we can be happy to see. And of course, we’re now waiting for Wolford, and that is a “sensitive places” decision, which should also be very interesting on how they rule on “sensitive places”. Teddy Nappen 16:14 Do you remember the commemorative for the Heller? The revolver they did. Evan Nappen 16:19 Yes, I have one. Teddy Nappen 16:21 I want, whoever is the top AR maker, I want them to do a commemorative to the case when we finally get the constitutionality on the assault weapon ban, and finally getting those removed. That would be awesome. Like, just seeing that. Who do you think would be making that? Page – 5 – of 12 Evan Nappen 16:39 Yeah, I’m sure there’ll be all kinds of guns. Well, you know, that’s funny. You know I have that Smith & Wesson when Heller came out. Teddy Nappen 16:47 Yeah. Evan Nappen 16:47 And Smith did a limited run of the 38 J-frame Smith and Wessons, and they are engraved on the side with the Heller decision and scales and all. It’s a pretty cool gun, and they came out with it pretty fast, right after the Heller decision. But I actually got Dick Heller himself, the Heller of the Heller decision, to sign the gun. So, I have a Heller commemorative Smith signed by Heller himself. Teddy Nappen 17:23 Don’t you have one for McDonald too, as well? I could have sworn there was a commemorative for that also. Evan Nappen 17:30 Yeah, yeah. I do, yeah. McDonald. But I also have a very collectible commemorative knife, Teddy. It’s a full kitchen knife, and it’s actually signed by Bobbitt. Remember the Bobbitt case? I have a knife that is signed by John Bobbitt there. And what he wrote on the knife, in addition to his name, he wrote “always sleep on your stomach”. Pretty good. Always sleep on your stomach, you know. Signed by Bobbitt. So, it’s a big kitchen butcher-style knife, a big chef’s knife. It’s definitely a great collectible. Teddy Nappen 18:18 I wanted him to write “Mr. Happy Went Missing” from the Weird Al. Mr. Happy. Evan Nappen 18:33 But he wrote: always sleep on your stomach. Okay, if anyone could give that advice, I guess it’s him. So, yeah, well, getting these things signed. Well, Dick Heller signed the gun, Bobbit signed the knife, and I’m not.. Forget it. I’m not going, not doing it, not doing it. So, hey, by the way, Teddy, where’s our favorite ranger that we shoot at? Come on. Teddy Nappen 19:07 Of course it’s We Shoot, obviously. Evan Nappen 19:09 That’s right, we do. We go there. We have a blast, and so will you. WeShoot is an indoor range right in Lakewood, New Jersey. It’s conveniently right off the Parkway. A beautiful facility, top of the line, modern. A great place. Great training, great pro shop, great people. It’s where we got our certifications for our carry, our CCARE certifications, and other training as well. You need to check out WeShoot, WeShoot. It’s at wewhootusa.com. Their website is really great. They have beautiful photographs, and they pride themselves in their photography. Make sure you also check out the WeShoot girls. They always have fantastic firearms that they are displaying. And there are sales and specials and deals. Page – 6 – of 12 WeShoot is just great. So, check out weshootusa.com. You’ll be glad you did. It’s a superb resource, you know. We/ve got to really use and protect our ranges, especially in New Jersey, where it’s so crowded and it’s tough to find really great places to shoot. But WeShoot is there filling an important need in protecting our rights. What good is having a gun if you can’t shoot it, man? So, check out weshoot usa.com. Evan Nappen 20:52 Also, I want to shamelessly promote my book on New Jersey gun law, which, by the way, is called New Jersey Gun Law. You can find it at EvanNappen.com. It’s over 500 pages, 120 topics, all question and answer. It is the guidebook, the key resource to helping you not become a GOFU. I’ve taken great pride in that, and I think you’ll enjoy it, too. Those that have it know its value. It’s designed as your easy-to-use reference to the insanity that is New Jersey gun law. Go to EvanNappen.com. EvanNappen.com. Get your copy today. Hey, Teddy, I know that you have Press Checks, and I think there’s a pretty fascinating Press Check story that you are going to share with us. What is this story? Tell me. Teddy Nappen 21:58 Well, we got our first from. Again, Press Checks are always free. This is from “Not the Bee.com”, Joel Abbott. (https://notthebee.com/article/babe-wake-up-british-tourists-are-starting-to-appreciate-the-second-amendment-?from_social=twitter) So, everyone’s been seeing the World Cup. I don’t typically follow soccer or anything on that, but you see all the Europeans coming in. I love that video of the Japanese tourist who brought trash bags and picked up their trash after their game. Evan Nappen 22:25 They’re very conscientious. That’s very, very good. Teddy Nappen 22:28 I know, as opposed to the Knicks fans who decided to burn down a bus, but whatever. Evan Nappen 22:34 Hey, listen. Mom would approve of the trash bag thing, you know that. Teddy Nappen 22:38 Oh, I know. Evan Nappen 22:40 Even just at our house, if we did that. Teddy Nappen 22:43 And the recycling. Can’t forget about that. Evan Nappen 22:44 That, too. Page – 7 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 22:46 But the one thing that seems to be catching on, because you have all the vloggers and people coming to want to experience America as they’re going to see. They’ve been going to gun ranges and to rent a gun places. Evan Nappen 23:00 I know. Isn’t that great? Teddy Nappen 23:01 They’re appreciating our Second Amendment. Evan Nappen 23:03 It’s actually spreading the understanding to these disarmed, oppressed peoples, and they’re suddenly seeing the light. Particularly, we see the UK folks. They’re like, wait a minute. How did we lose this right? Teddy Nappen 23:20 Yeah. Evan Nappen 23:20 How did this happen? Teddy Nappen 23:22 And it’s very interesting. It’s almost like those videos you always see where it’s the liberals going to the range, and they actually like, oh my right, yeah, you see all these people like, why were they’re waiting for, like, wait, you guys can just do this? They’re always shocked and awe from everything. But one in particular, this was a British guy, Spencer Towering. He does videos. We’ve been totally pacified in the U.K. through the removal of our arms, our right to bear arms. It’s caused a big problem for us. Now our Government is basically turning it into an absolute, tyrannical feminine leadership that is gradually eroding our rights, and there’s really not much we can do about it. Well, there’s one thing you can do. You know, just kind of look to the founding of our nation, and then get some ideas. Or they could look to the risings in Scotland, and try not to, you know, go with, try to not to put the Bonnie Prince on the throne. It didn’t work. Evan Nappen 24:22 You know, the British even went after an IT consultant. Teddy Nappen 24:28 Correct. Evan Nappen 24:29 Because he posed with a gun in the U.S. and posted it on LinkedIn. Page – 8 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 24:34 Yep, just for posing with it. Evan Nappen 24:36 For posint with a shotgun, an 870 shotgun. Teddy Nappen 24:40 Yep. Thirteen weeks of hell he went through for sharing a photo of something that wasn’t even taken in the U.K. This is why. Evan Nappen 24:54 This was pointed out by “Not the Bee”. So, “Not the Bee is a pretty cool aggregate on news sources. And this is. Teddy Nappen 25:06 Frankly, far funnier than the article. Evan Nappen 25:09 “Not the Bee” is real stuff that you can’t believe is actually true when it is. As opposed to the “Babylon Bee”, which is parody. “Not the Bee” has real stories in it that you think should be fake, but they’re not. It’s like unbelievable. But this one here is not as outrageous, to be honest, because this is what makes it so great about having rights, you know, and why we got to protect them. We see what it’s like for the folks that live in countries that they claim to make believe are free when they’re not. I mean, we’re still fighting for freedom here, but I mean to think that, you know, cl

  ListenShow Notes
• 

  Gun Lawyer

  Episode 294-AG Green-lights Red Flag

  Jun 14, 202646 minS0

  <p><p> </p> <h2 >Episode 294-AG Green-lights Red Flag</h2> <h3 >Also Available On</h3>

  ListenShow Notes
• 

  Gun Lawyer

  Episode 293-Guest Firearms Attorney Greg Miller

  Jun 7, 20261h 21mS0

  <p><p> </p> <h2 >Episode 293-Guest Firearms Attorney Greg Miller</h2> <h3 >Also Available On</h3>

  ListenShow Notes

Recent guests on Gun Lawyer. Study who booked and why before you pitch.

Based on semantic analysis of episode topics and host coverage, this show is a strong guest fit for executives in:

Industry fit is computed by PitchCentric using vector embeddings of the show's episode catalog.