Advertise on podcast: Gun Lawyer

  Episode 286- Shoot New York’s Eye Out Also Available On Searchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 10 Gun Lawyer — Episode 286 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Air guns, BB guns, federal law, state law, preemption, New York ban, imitation firearms, gun rights, mental health, firearm safety, historical context, Vatican security, Pope’s stance, gun control, legal advice. SPEAKERS Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen, Speaker 3 Evan Nappen 00:17 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:19 and I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:20 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, you know, my whole life I’ve really loved air guns. I had BB guns and air rifles as a kid. I had my, of course, the classic Red Ryder, and I had a Crosman 760 XL. Now, that was the Crossman 177 pellet and BB rifle, and the XL had the beautiful golden receiver on it. I don’t know if any of you had an XL version of the 760, but that was a really fun, great air gun. And I had a Benjamin. Man, that was a powerhouse, and it was .22 caliber pellet. You can pump that baby up, and that was my number one squirrel killer. And all as a kid. I shot squirrels in my yard, where my father had a giant garden. He needed to keep the squirrel population down, and I shot those squirrels. Then I cut off their tails, and then I sold the tails to Mepps Lure company, which would buy squirrel tails. I think they still might do that. And that got me some money as a kid. And it was used, of course, to buy more pellets and fun things. And I progressed, as maybe some of you did, to a love of adult air guns. Evan Nappen 01:59 And then, of course, Robert Beeman and air rifle headquarters. They were bringing in those premier, phenomenal air rifles that today are the standard of an entire sector of what I’ll call the gun world. Some of you may have had great RWS guns. My favorite were the Feinwerkbaus. I’ll never forget, my dad got a Feinwerkbau 124 from Beeman that he ordered. He had it custom ordered, and they worked out, worked up the innards on it. So, that thing was sweet. And ever since then, I’ve acquired many adult air guns. I have, you know, the finest Feinwerkbau ever made, the 300 series, the Olympic Feinwerkbau. It just shoots through the same hole. Evan Nappen 03:01 There are so many phenomenal air guns. And today, of course, the revolution in air guns is the pre-charge air gun. They have air guns that have tremendous ability for hunting, and air guns are just a blast. They’re fun. They’re a great way of learning firearm safety and shooting skills. A great way of Page – 2 – of 10 introducing young folks into firearms and the fun and joy of shooting. So, air guns are great. I have a deep love of air guns. Always have. I’m a collector of air guns. I love the history of air guns. And you may know that an air gun was taken on the Lewis and Clark expedition, which made a lot of sense, because the ability to get gunpowder in the wilderness is not an easy task. And with an air gun, there’s always air around. They would pump up that air gun and could use it to take big game. It was that air rifle. It is actually still known and around, that was used on the St. Louis, you know. When they left St. Louis, they had it with them on that great exploratory mission under President Jefferson. And air guns, even at one point, they were used militarily by the Austrians. Napoleon had the death penalty for anybody caught with an air rifle, and those were able to fire repeatedly with enough power to be used militarily. There’s an amazing history and air guns. But the modern sporting air gun today, all the way down to the BB gun, has a tremendous role. Evan Nappen 05:02 Yet, despite the tradition and the history of air guns in America, New York is now proposing a law to ban BB guns and air guns. The law that New York Democrats, of course, are proposing is to ban air guns by making air guns all being placed in a category of “imitation weapons”. (https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2026/04/13/new-york-lawmakers-take-aim-at-bb-guns-n1232199) And by doing that, it would require that every air gun has a plug and specific coloration, and by putting them in that category, they will no longer shoot. Okay? So, you know, what’s the point there? The idea here being, if you make them an imitation firearm, and then they want to raise the age from 16 to 18. They’re selling this nonsense under a typical gun oppressionists lie of claiming police-involved shootings involving individuals who possessed an air gun, which was designed to look like a firearm. You know, the same way they sold the nonsense of cop-killer bullets, of which no cop has ever been killed by one. But why should that stop them from banning so-called cop-killer bullets. Anytime they get any angle that they can sell to the public and fool the public, who doesn’t have an understanding of guns as such, they do it. Evan Nappen 07:11 And here, New York now may become subject to what would essentially be a ban on air guns and BB guns. But let me say right now on the Gun Lawyer podcast that if New York succeeds in passing this law, there is a magic bullet, shall we say, that can kill this law. New Yorkers can shoot the eye out of New York’s air gun ban. The way to do it, I’m going to give you right now how to kill an air gun ban. It is under the United States Code, Title 15 (Commerce and Trade, Chapter 76), Section 5001. (https://law.justia.com/codes/us/title-15/chapter-76/) Evan Nappen 08:12 And this, my friends, is a federal law. It is a federal law that deals with imitation firearms. The reason this federal law is such an incredibly powerful weapon is that this federal law is an area of firearm pre-emption law. What it means is that federal law preempts state law. Federal law supersedes and is superior to, overrides. Overrides it, my friends. Overrides it. And because of that, we are able to take out state laws that attempt to interfere with air guns, and, for that matter, imitation firearms. The very thing that New York is attempting to use as the vehicle to create an air gun ban. Page – 3 – of 10 Evan Nappen 09:27 Let me tell you about Section 5001. Section 5001 first defines and lays out what is required to be on imitation firearms. It lays out what we have seen in the last few decades of having the distinctive markings, the blaze orange plug on look-alike or toy air guns and other imitation firearms and such. The look-alike firearm, which is what the law refers to, is defined as any imitation of an original firearm which was manufactured, designed or produced since 1898 including and Evan Nappen 10:21 limited to toy guns, water guns, replica non guns, airsoft guns firing nonmetallic projectiles, you know, such as airsoft and such. The term does not include any look alike, non firing collector replica of an antique firearm developed prior to 1898 or traditional BB, paintball, or pellet firing air guns that expel a projectile through the use of force or air pressure. And lo and behold, this section has a statement that says, preemption of state or local laws or ordinances. Preemption. The provisions of this section shall supersede any provision of state or local laws or ordinances which provide for markings or identification inconsistent with provisions of this section. Okay. Then it goes on and it says, ready? No State shall and then number one, prohibit the sale or manufacture of any look-alike, nonfiring, collector replica of an antique firearm. So, replica collector firearms are protected. And two, very important here for New York and any other state that wants to try to ban air guns, prohibit the sale parentheses, other than prohibiting the sale to minors end parentheses, of traditional BB, paint ball or pellet-firing air guns that expel a projectile through the force of air pressure. So, should New York be as repressive and stupid as to attempt to ban air guns, federal law preempts and nullifies, supersedes, that state law. Evan Nappen 12:54 Let me tell you another little factor, very interesting. I used this law successfully to attack New Jersey’s assault firearm law. In the case of Coalition of New Jersey Sportsmen versus Florio, which you can find at 744 F. Sup. 602, back in 1990, I challenged the then Attorney General, Robert Del Tufo. I brought an action, a civil action, challenging New Jersey’s assault firearm ban on a number, and magazine ban, by the way, on a number of things. One of the specific challenges was utilizing 15 U.S.C. 5001, which is the air gun preemption. New Jersey’s assault firearm ban, as written, included air guns, because air guns are firearms in New Jersey, and the ban on assault firearms and magazines by definition included air guns. And this case with Judge Garrett Brown, federal judge, had an injunction, which, by the way, this is why today you can still buy air guns, BB guns, pellet guns in New Jersey that may seem at first to fall under the definition of New Jersey’s assault firearm law because of this case and its outcome. The court found that the prohibition as it affects air guns was unconstitutional in that it was preempted under this federal law. Evan Nappen 15:06 So, there’s even case law enforcing this federal preemption as it comes to air guns, even in an assault firearm ban, no less a ban that specifically attempts to ban air guns and BB guns. So, I am giving this to New York as information, folks, and anywhere else that there is an air gun ban that we have a weapon. Believe it or not, air guns, BB guns, etc, are more protected than firearms in America. More protected because federal law preempts state laws from banning them. If we had federal preemption for firearms, then the only firearm law would be the federal law, and no state law banning guns would stand. But we don’t have federal preemption. Our federal gun laws, except with

  Episode 285-Nappen Law Firm Does Hat Trick Also Available On Searchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 10 Gun Lawyer — Episode 285 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Appellate Division, firearm licensing, Bergen County, mental health, due process, public health, safety, welfare, falsification, character and temperament, court reversal, pro se, legal representation, gun rights, grassroots advocacy. SPEAKERS Speaker 3, Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen Evan Nappen 00:16 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:19 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:21 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. Well, I’m very proud to report that my firm, particularly my brother Louis, who does our appellate work, has won yet another Appellate Division appeal out of Bergen County. Now, this is the Appellate Court reviewing the trial court in Bergen County, handling firearm licensing. And this is another win that really makes some excellent legal points here that are very significant and also points out what is been going on in that county. I want to get into this case and explain the significance and how it works here in New Jersey. Evan Nappen 01:23 So, this case just came, just got posted online by the Appellate Division and is entitled “In The Matter Of The Appeal Of The Denial Of J.L.B.’s Application For A Firearms Purchaser Identification Card And Permit To Purchase A Handgun”. (https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2026/a0464-24.pdf) So, J.L.B. appealed from an Order denying his appeal from the New Milford Police Department who denied his application for an FPIC and a PPH, a Firearm Purchaser ID Card and Permit to Purchase a Handgun. Now, on this application, J.L.B. answered “no” to the question, Have you ever been attended, treated or observed by any doctor, psychiatrist in the hospital or mental institution on an inpatient or outpatient basis for any mental or physical or psychiatric condition? In denying the application, the New Milford PD cited solely a suicidal comment made by J.L.B.’s daughter several years prior, and their inability to obtain records from the Division of Child Protection Services, the DCPP. Milford PD concluded the issuance of the permits to our client would not be in the interest of “public health, safety, or welfare”, the all inclusive miscellaneous weasel clause. Evan Nappen 03:07 J.B.L., our client, filed an appeal to the law division, which is the Superior Court in Bergen. And he did this pro se. He did that by himself. The Court denied his appeal, and the court found him disqualified, Page – 2 – of 10 pursuant to (N.J.S.) 2C:58-3(c), for knowingly falsifying information on the application pursuant to 2C:58-3(c)(5). and for lacking character and temperament necessary to be entrusted with a firearm. The Appellate Court, upon careful review, reversed and remanded for a hearing before a different trial judge because they found there is no evidence in the record demonstrating that J.L.B. knowingly falsified information on his application. Further, that J.L.B. was not given notice of the 3(c)(5) disqualifier until after he had already presented his closing argument, in violation of his rights to due process. Evan Nappen 04:18 Additionally, the trial court failed to address whether the alleged falsification was made knowingly, as required by the statute. Very important, folks. Furthermore, with respect to N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(5), the Court’s reasoning provided no meaningful explanation as to why the issuance of an FPIC to J.L.B. would be contrary to public health, safety, or welfare. So, one GOFU right out of the box is don’t go Pro Se to Bergen County on an appealable license. Anytime you’re dealing with the courts, you want to have an attorney. Okay? That’s number one. Now, even though he got denied, fortunately, he hired us to do the appeal. And in doing this appeal, the Appellate Court has reversed his denial, sent it back to the court, and required that it be heard by a different judge. Evan Nappen 05:21 Let’s take a look at some of the facts here in this case. It’s very interesting, particularly how the court decided it, because it can have impact on other cases. So, the Court gathered the following facts from the trial court’s hearing. J.L.B. is a certified public accountant with no criminal history. He has primary custody of his seven children, who range from six to 16. In April of 2020, his daughter, who was nine years old, sent a text message to her teacher, saying, “I want to die” and “I spent four days with dad, and four days with my mom, and I keep switching until everything is settled. But I can’t sleep without knowing if mommy is okay and safe.” The message led to the daughter receiving several months of therapy. The DCPP was involved in the family’s life on three different occasions, each time, deeming the allegations “Not Established”. Evan Nappen 06:19 J.L.B.’s ex-wife testified on behalf of the State, describing alleged incidents of verbal and physical abuse by J.L.B. against her and her two children, as well as her struggles with alcoholism, for which she completed inpatient rehabilitation. The wife never testified or obtained a, never filed or obtained a Temporary Restraining Order against J.L.B. The court found her testimony not completely credible and characterized it as totally based on hearsay. J.L.B.’s sister testified as a character witness, describing his demeanor and relationship with his family, expressing no concerns about him owning a firearm. Dr. Richard Cyriacks, a family friend, similarly, testified that he had no concerns about J.L.B. responsibly handling a firearm. J.L.B. testified he had purchased a biometric firearm safe in which he intended to store the firearm if his permits were granted. J.L.B. testified he had seen a psychologist, a Doctor Lenzi, from 2018 to 2022 for marital issues, but he denied ever being diagnosed with a mental health condition or receiving psychiatric treatment or medication. Briefly, at around age 19, he had also seen a therapist following the death of his father. Page – 3 – of 10 Evan Nappen 07:42 Following this testimony, the State moved to compel the release of his mental health records from Dr. Lenzi, which the Court granted. So, keep in mind, folks, if you think you have medical privacy in New Jersey, you don’t! Okay? The Court ordered the records to come in. The Court admitted J.L.B.’s counseling records and a letter from Lenzi into evidence, from the doctor. In her letter, the doctor noted that she first saw him in 2017 for “marital difficulties”. “He presented as concerned about his marriage and stressed but positive and high functioning.” He reconnected for individual therapy in 2020 because of his wife taking the children to Connecticut, causing him distress. He was seen on an as-needed basis. The doctor reported his symptoms were within normal limits of chronic stressors and the family crisis he worked through during the treatment with him. She further reported that she observed no unstable mental health issues, and his treatment focused on implementing stress management strategies, communication, awareness, improvement and relationship building with the children, decreasing internal anxiety and meeting his challenges in an aware and grounded manner as to the records themselves. Lenzi wrote that he had symptoms of anxiety and depression related to marital difficulties, and in 2020 a progress noted that he presented with anxiety and depression and expressed that he was devastated by what he was going through. In 2024, the Court denied J.L.B.’s appeal, finding he was disqualified, pursuant to 2C:58-3(c)(3) for knowingly falsifying information regarding previous mental health treatment, and pursuant to 2C:58-3(c)(5) for lacking the character and temperament necessary to be entrusted with a firearm. This appeal is what followed. Evan Nappen 09:47 The court, the Appellate Court, says N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3 governs the issuance of FPICs and PPHs which it does. A person may not receive an FPIC or PPH, if they are, “known in the community in which the person lives as someone who has engaged in acts or made statements suggesting the person is likely to engage in conduct, other than justified self-defense, that would pose a danger to self or others.” Or if you’re subject to any of the other disqualifications under 58-3. Pursuant to that law, no FPIC or PPH shall be issued to any person who, and this is underlined in the opinion, knowingly falsifies any information on the application form for a handgun purchase permit or firearm purchaser ID card. Invoking FPIC/PPH disqualification when any falsification is tendered is consistent with the application’s underlying function, which is to provide information to facilitate the police chief’s background investigation. Further an FPIC application that includes, again underlined, a knowing falsehood is disqualified at the moment it is filed and cannot be rehabilitated by an admission made later. Evan Nappen 11:12 The Court then noted initially that J.B.L. did not receive notice of the 2C:58-3 issue, the falsification issue. I mean, the other issue until the State raised it at closing, which was delivered to J.B.L. after he’d already presented his closing statement. And the Court here says, “To comport with due process, a judicial hearing requires notice defining the issues and an adequate opportunity to prepare and respond.” N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(3) was not cited as a basis for disqualification in the New Milford PD’s letter denial letter. It was not cited sorry. As a basis for disqualification, nor was it discussed as a potential ground for denying his appeal until both parties had presented their evidence at the hearing. J.L.B. was therefore denied the opportunity to defend himself on this grou

  Episode 284-Robots Coming for Our Guns? Also Available On Searchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 12 Gun Lawyer — Episode 284 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Gun rights, Appellate Division, Bergen County, mental health crisis, firearm sale, handgun purchase permit, New Jersey law, firearm storage, third party disqualification, extreme risk protection orders, domestic violence, Second Amendment, gun confiscation, robots, Milgram experiment. SPEAKERS Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen, Speaker 2 Evan Nappen 00:16 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:19 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:21 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, my firm has done it again. We have won yet another Appellate Division gun case, and again coming out of Bergen County, which is notorious when it comes to denials of individuals regarding their gun rights. And we have yet another case here that’s very important, and we’re going to discuss it fully. It really is significant in what the Court is stating. It’s addressing problems that we’ve seen throughout the practice of gun law and the gun rights oppression that has taken place judicially. And the expansion is now, finally, apparently being curtailed. Evan Nappen 01:29 Let’s talk about this case. So, this case is “In the Matter of Compelling the Sale of Maya Kun’s Firearm”. And if you want to read the actual case, the link, of course, is online at our website, where we always put the transcript of the show. We’ll have the link to the case. (https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2026/a0076-24.pdf) But let’s take a look at what this case is about and its legal significance. The petitioner is a Maya Kun and appeals from an order compelling the sale of her handgun and prospectively barring her from being issued, you know, in the future, a handgun purchase permit and a firearm purchaser ID card. And what happened here? The police were called to Kun’s home. Her boyfriend, D.G., is what we’ll refer to him as, and as referred to in the case, was experiencing a mental health crisis. Kun voluntarily surrendered her firearm, and that’s a firearm for which she was licensed in New York on the day of the incident. Evan Nappen 02:47 The State then filed a motion to compel the sale of Kun’s firearm, which Bergen is notorious in doing, by the way. And following the hearing, the Court granted state’s motion and ordered Kun, as follows. Kun was “prohibited from owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving firearms and/or ammunition, and from securing or holding an FPIC or HPP . . .”, being a Handgun Purchase Permit or a Firearms Page – 2 – of 12 Purchaser ID Card, “pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3, or a permit to carry a handgun pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4.” And the Court says that, after further review of the record and applicable law, we conclude the trial court erred in compelling the sale of Kun’s firearm and reverse and remand for an order consistent with this opinion. Evan Nappen 03:47 And the facts are interesting in this case, and I’ll just give you it in a nutshell. Kun called local police. Kun was a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine and specializes in child psychology. The police responded to Kun’s home after being informed by a third party that Kun’s live-in boyfriend D.G. had made concerning statements about wanting to harm himself. Upon arrival, Kuhn said that D.G. had been drinking heavily and planned to kill himself over anguish regarding the anniversary of his mother’s death. The officer that came there smelled alcohol, said D.G. was mildly aggressive, had a bruise above his right eye from where he fell while intoxicated, allegedly, and the officers eventually decided to transport D.G. to the hospital for evaluation. D.G. was evaluated and sent home that same day. Evan Nappen 04:55 Now, Kuhn had voluntarily surrendered her firearm to the police on that day. The firearm was a Glock 19, and it was stored in a safe in the primary bedroom, accessible only with a code and a key. The firearm was removed after D.G. was placed in an ambulance and sent to the hospital. Kuhn had a New York Firearms ID Card for the Glock, and she didn’t have a New Jersey license. But, as you should know, in your home, under N.J.S. 2C:39-6.e., you can possess a firearm without a license in New Jersey under that exemption. Kun testified that they lived together for three years, and she was the only person who had access to the gun safe. And in response to questioning by the trial court, who often acts very aggressive in questioning in that court, we’ve experienced it and seen it, said that she would have given D.G. access to her gun because she had no concerns about his mental health. However, later in the hearing, she corrected that earlier statement and said she would not have given access. And at the hearing, Kun also produced, however, keep this in mind, a letter from D.G.’s psychoanalyst, which said that he’s been seeing him for symptoms related to the mother’s passing and does not have any concerns related to suicide or homicide on his part. And this includes during the episode in question, which led to all this, and around the anniversary of the mother’s death. He has no history of violence and hasn’t had a drink in a year. And despite losing his father two months ago, he attends AA and in his professional opinion, he does not pose any danger to society or himself. Now that was on D.G., of course. The trial court found both officers credible and concluded D.G. was disqualified from having gun licenses and that he was likely to engage in conduct other than justified self-defense that would pose a danger to himself or others. And that’s of course, under N.J.S. 2C:58-3(c). Evan Nappen 07:12 The court also found, here’s where the rub comes in, that Kun, our client, was not fit to own a gun, as she was a threat to health, safety or welfare of the public if issued a firearm. And in making its decision, the Court considered only Kun’s statement that she was willing to give D.G. access to the gun safe despite his mental health and did not credit her later testimony, correcting the earlier statement. In sum, the court held. Quote. This is the court’s holding. This is court in the trial court. “In my view, given the totality of evidence here, it is common sense given the fact that you would give access to a person who clearly has been very troubled. Who’s expressed suicidal ideation, has had an issue with alcoholism Page – 3 – of 12 and continues to treat with a psychologist for the past year, that cohabitates with you. Given the totality of evidence here, and your initial answer to me that you wouldn’t hesitate to give him access to firearms, I do find that the State has met its burden by a preponderance of the evidence and you’re disqualified pursuant to 2C:58-3.” The Appellate Court says, we review a trial court’s legal conclusions regarding firearm licenses de novo. They look at it anew. Evan Nappen 08:35 They then in the opinion, which you can read, reiterate through case law. Reviewing all the case law and such, the court says, as N.J.S. 2C:58-3 governs the issuance of handgun purchase permits and firearms purchaser ID cards, a person may not receive either if they are “known in the community in which the person lives as someone who has engaged in acts or made statements suggesting the person is likely to engage in conduct, other than justified self-defense, that would pose a danger to self or others.” The Court then says later down in the opinion, “The statute does not require that an applicant provide information regarding other members of the applicant’s household, although there are requirements regarding the safekeeping of a firearm from minors.” Let me just tell you, folks. We run into this a lot, where guns that belong to innocent third parties in a home get confiscated due to the actions or conditions or issues of a third party in a home. Evan Nappen 10:01 Of the other party, and here the court is saying very clearly, the statute doesn’t require that the applicant provide information about other, about others. Further in the opinion, it says that the trial court erred in disqualifying Kun based on D.G.’s alleged mental health struggles. All of the disqualifiers under N.J.S. 2C:58-3(c) address the conduct of the firearm owner, not that of an adult third party who lives with the owner. Despite this clear language, the court’s opinion was overwhelmingly focused on D.G.’s conduct and risk propensity. The trial court found D.G. was disqualified from having a handgun purchase permit or firearm purchaser ID card pursuant to several disqualifiers, including reputation in the community, mental illness, prior and voluntary commitment, character, temperament posing a threat to public health, safety, welfare. The Court considered the letter from D.G.’s psychoanalyst as a “net opinion” and insufficient to prove D.G. no longer suffers from that particular disability in a manner that would interfere with or handicap them in the handling of a firearm. Evan Nappen 11:38 But D.G. was not the owner of the gun. The weapon has not been seized from him. There was no domestic violence order in place, and he was not seeking a handgun purchase permit or firearm purchaser ID card. Folks, this goes at this giant bugaboo, this issue that has been plaguing New Jersey gun owners, that leads to confiscations, that leads to individuals losing their rights because of another. And the court has addressed it here. “The court had no reason to make findings regarding D.G.” The State did not present evidence or prove issuance of a firearm to D.G. would be a threat to health, safety, or welfare from possessing. The incident in question happened over a year ago. The State presented officers responded to th

  Episode 283-Fighting the Gun Records Cover-up Also Available On Searchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 11 Gun Lawyer — Episode 283 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Gun lawyer, John Petrolino, Citizens Committee, New Jersey, carry permits, African American applicants, retired police officers, freedom of information, institutionalized racism, constitutional carry, national reciprocity, Second Amendment, anti-knife movement, UK gun laws, knife control. SPEAKERS Speaker 2, Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen Evan Nappen 00:16 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:18 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:20 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, we are currently watching with great expectation here over a lawsuit that has been brought and filed by our good friend John Petrolino with the help and assistance of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. (ccrkba.org) And what is going on here is very interesting, because John, who many of you know, does excellent reporting on firearm issues, particularly on New Jersey as well. He does great extensive coverage. Well, John was instrumental in having the permit to carry statistics getting publicized and put out there. And with it being put into the ether and made part of an awareness that otherwise really wasn’t there about the key discovery he made regarding blacks, black carry applicants. African American applicants are denied more than double their white counterparts for non-criminal reasons. Okay? Evan Nappen 01:55 And John, he requested the records seeking the statistics on retired police officer carry permits to build on the coverage of all as to who has been denied. So, remember retired police officers in New Jersey can get the RLEO, the Retired Law Enforcement Officer, Card, which in effect functions as a carry permit for retired law enforcement. Prior to the Bruen decision, where it was virtually impossible for folks to get carries, Retired Officers through the RLEO were able to get their carry in that manner. Now, of course, there’s been even more progress where LEOSA (Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act) also covers law enforcement and actually covers New Jersey law enforcement, which to large degree makes even needing a retired law enforcement carry not as necessary as it used to be. But still, it is something that is done, that is issued. Page – 2 – of 11 Evan Nappen 03:14 John requested through, you know, essentially New Jersey’s freedom of information to get the records so that we can continue the further analysis. And what I have here is a news release from Citizens Committee. (https://ccrkba.org/ccrkba-director-sues-nj-officials-over-denied-records-requests/) And what it says, as noted in the complaint, “Plaintiff and the public has a strong interest in ascertaining the relationship between the demographics of carry permit holders amongst the general public and retired law enforcement officers including but not limited to county location, race, sex and the effect of potentially disqualifying criteria in the application population as well as the success rate for the appeal process within the New Jersey State Police.” “Having established Petrolino was deprived of his common law right of access the New Jersey Civil Rights Act was violated, the clear remedy is injunctive relief compelling the production of the records to Petrolino . . .” It continues, “The NJSP”, meaning New Jersey State Police, “has denied countless records requests that I’ve made over the years, never fulfilling even one”, Director Petrolino said. “When I emailed them about these denials, an unnamed person at NJSP basically told me to sue them — so here we are.” Evan Nappen 04:46 That’s right. And as further noted in the news release, “Records concerning the retired police officer permits are about as public as you can get,” says Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “Do they have the same level of perceived bias in their permitting statistics? Or perhaps worse yet, do they not? The public has a right to know this information. We laud Director Petrolino in his quest to hold New Jersey officials accountable by forcing them to be transparent with those they swore to serve.” Yes, it is very important that these records get out there, because the current records already show the institutionalized racism that occurs in carry permitting systems. That alone should stand for why we should have Constitutional Carry in New Jersey, where you do not need any permit, as do the majority of the United States. They have no permit required, and it is something that is not necessary, nor in full exercise of the Second Amendment. We should not even be required to need a permission slip. And this illustrates the reasons why. Because the surest way to avoid the racial discrimination, to avoid these type of coverups over records, is to not have to have the records at all, by having what is lovingly called Constitutional Carry. Evan Nappen 06:34 You may have heard there’s a bill federally being pursued to have National Constitutional Carry, which would preempt all states and make it so that any law-abiding citizen can carry without any permit anywhere in the U.S. Now, as a step in between getting to that would be national reciprocity, where every State has to at least recognize every other state’s carry permit, although the majority of states don’t even require carry permits anymore. So, this is what we’re working toward, because this is fundamental to our rights. The ability to carry, the ability to be defenders and not victims, and the fight continues. This is yet another important, very important, step in the fight. As it reveals, and has the potential to reveal, the flaws and other problems that go to bias, racism, arbitrary denials, discouragement built into the system itself. These are all the mechanisms that permitting systems are designed to create. They’re actually made to do this. They’re made to discourage. The idea that it has anything to do with public safety is, of course, a joke, and it’s proven by the Constitutional carry states that are doing just fine without the permission slip. So, in the states that have this still in place, it’s there to be a barrier to the exercise of our rights. Page – 3 – of 11 Evan Nappen 08:28 And you know, it’s kind of laughable to see the Left talk about how outrageous it is, unbelievably outrageous, how it’s Jim Crow 2.0, to require an ID to vote. To vote! That’s Jim Crow. But what goes on with carry permits, with gun licensing? Oh, that’s fine. Well, if that’s Jim Crow 2.0, gun laws are Jim Crow 2000. It’s insanity then, Okay? That’s what’s going on in that radical difference. Teddy Nappen 09:10 Honestly, Dad, it makes me think back to Shaneen Allen, where, you remember, we reached out to all the pro black groups, all the others, like bringing. Evan Nappen 09:22 Right! Teddy Nappen 09:22 They were going to put a single black mom in jail for doing nothing more wrong than. Evan Nappen 09:28 Seven years, with three and a half years minimum mandatory, was their best offer when I took on the case. Teddy Nappen 09:35 Yep, reached out to Al Sharpton’s group, the NCAA, anything? Evan Nappen 09:39 Everybody, right! Teddy Nappen 09:41 Nothing. Crickets. Evan Nappen 09:43 Crickets. Teddy Nappen 09:44 Because there is a built-in reason. These people, the Left are just Marxists. And when it comes to Marxists, they have no standards. It’s about oppressor and oppressee, and it doesn’t matter what position we must take. Because that’s how you end up with Queers for Palestine. That’s how you end up with the fact that they’re pushing actual racist gun laws. Because that is the standard. Because it has to be. No, no. We have to make sure these people are disarmed so we can keep the oppressor / oppressee mindset continuing. Sorry, we can’t side and agree with common sense issues like civil rights. Evan Nappen 10:26 And the most fundamental of all civil rights is the right to be armed. I mean, look right now at what’s going on in Iran. Gee, why haven’t the people risen up to get rid of that evil, terroristic, ruthless regime? Page – 4 – of 11 Why? They don’t have the guns. They don’t have the guns. That’s the problem. That is the big problem. And we have, as an insurance policy in America the Second Amendment, and it’s a check on tyranny. Okay? Enemies, both foreign and domestic, all right? This is why it’s there. And you can see countries that have disarmed their civilian population, and then you see what they do to them. You can see that taking place. Not just in countries as extreme as Iran, or as extreme even as North Korea, or others, what we think of as dictatorships or totalitarian states. But just look now at the U.K. and what is going on there. And Teddy, I think in Press Checks, you’re going to be talking about that, and there you can see what. I’m not going to, we’ll just put that as a little teaser. We’re going to get into that, and it’s critical. So, I want to applaud John Petrolino and Citizens Committee (CCRKBA.org) for pushing to get these records, and as we can expose the cover up. Because why? Why not release them? What is it that they’re so afraid of us finding out, right? You know, there’s something there. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. There’s something going on there, and I can’t wait to find out the truth. We will get to the truth. Evan Nappen 12:25 Hey, let me tell you about our good friends at WeShoot. WeShoot is a fantastic range down in Lakewood, New Jersey, where Teddy and I shoot. We got our training and certificates at WeShoot, and it’s a great resource, as well. They are having a big March Madness sale, and this sale is going until Tuesday the 31st. Here’s some of these deals in their

  Episode 282-Court Tosses Polatov Cocktail on Gun Law Also Available On Searchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Gun Lawyer Transcript – Episode 282 SUMMARY KEYWORDS Polytoph case, gun rights, New Jersey gun law, firearms purchaser identification card, second amendment, public health, safety, welfare, Bruen decision, essential character of temperament, weasel clause, gun denial, federal case law, voluntary registration, gun lawyer. SPEAKERS Speaker 2, Robert Bell, Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen Evan Nappen  00:17 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen  00:19 And I’m Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen  00:21 And welcome to Gun Lawyer with a very exciting show today, because we are going to learn about Pearl Harbor. No, it’s all about a different issue. What we are learning about, though, is a great case that just came down from the Appellate Division that my firm was fighting for our client here. It is a really amazing case that is a published decision, and this is very important to understand. In New Jersey, when a decision is deemed published, it means it is law. It acts as law. And the great attorney who argued this case for the firm, and did, in fact, do the appeal as well, is Robert Bell. Rob, welcome to Gun Lawyer. Robert Bell  01:23 Thank you. Great to be here. Evan Nappen  01:25 All right, man. So, we’re all very excited about the (Mikhail) Polatov case, and that’s why we’re saying that the “Court Tossed a Polatov Cocktail on New Jersey Gun Law”. Because this case, which is a great win, actually had some very, very important impacts on our gun rights and in future fights in the courts over gun laws. Why don’t you tell us about this case, Rob, and where we’re at and what’s happened. Go right ahead. Robert Bell  02:03 Certainly. So, Mikhail’s journey in trying to exercise his Second Amendment rights started back in 2020. He applied for a Firearms Purchaser Identification Card and was denied. Not on the basis of any convictions, restraining orders, substance abuse, or anything like that. Nothing objective. Just a 2011 misdemeanor charge that was dismissed and something back in 2002. So, it’s all very remote, and neither of them resulted in convictions, anyway. He gets denied, and he appeals it. He gets in front of our favorite Bergen County judge. I don’t need to say his name, but you can look into the record and find it yourself. Robert Bell  02:51 Don’t worry. He listens to the show. So, it’s okay. Robert Bell  02:56 So, he gets in front of this judge, and he testifies about what happened in 2011 in New York during this incident that was dismissed. And it’s not that the Judge disliked the behavior. He just disliked his “cavalier attitude about it” and denied the permit. Fast forward to 2023. Mikhail applies again, and this time his wife applies as well. Both denied. Simply on the basis of a previous denial. They appeal it. They deny the wife simply because she lives with him, and they deny him because he was dishonest with us before. And if he’s telling the truth now, it means he was either lying then or lying now. It doesn’t matter. It was just a catch 22 of you lied at some point, and I don’t like that. You are not of the essential character of temperament necessary to be entrusted with a firearm. And that’s that, that was the, the addition to the weasel clause that I think our viewers know, right? Evan Nappen  04:11 So, let’s do, let’s explain a little bit. The disqualifiers that exist in the gun laws under (Chapter) 58. There’s a list of what we often call the per se disqualifiers, where somebody like if you’re a convicted felon, it’s a per se disqualifier. And virtually everybody knows that. But New Jersey has this catch-all, the all-inclusive miscellaneous weasel clause that we refer to as “public health, safety, and welfare”. And that provision, that basis for denial is the area where we see the most significant abuse, particularly racist abuse. Where there’s a disproportionate denial of blacks by more than two and a half times to whites. It is the section of the law that is fraught with abuse on stopping the individual from being able to get licensed. The law was changed in New Jersey from just “public health, safety, and welfare”, but adding the phrase about “based on character of temperament”. Well, Rob, why did they add that? Why don’t you tell listeners why? You know the history. Why was that put in there? Robert Bell  05:26 In June 2022, when the (United States) Supreme Court issued the Bruen decision, the anti-gun states, the gun the rights oppressors in New Jersey, New York, California, Maryland, and Massachusetts, were absolutely seething. And they have been going on a temper tantrum ever since. In December 2022, they decided to pass that temper tantrum into legislation that was signed by the governor immediately. And it added “. . . the essential character of temperament necessary to be entrusted with a firearm.” Where they found that was in footnote one of the Bruen opinion. Footnote one of the Bruen opinion explains the laws of multiple states, including that of Connecticut, and they quoted a case called Dwyer versus Farrell. Now, Dwyer versus Farrell is a Connecticut case about the firearms laws. Robert Bell  06:16 However, the Supreme Court quoted Dwyer versus Farrell, and they had a phrase in it, essential character of temperament, necessary to be entrusted with a firearm. However, the Supreme Court of the United States unfortunately has a typo in that footnote. It actually reads “character or temperament”. So, we know exactly what they were doing. They were just combing that decision, looking for anything and everything to keep this unctuous statute going for as long as they possibly can so that they can continue oppressing gun rights. So, now we have a phrase in the weasel clause that is a result of the legislature copying somebody else’s homework and passing it off as a sensible phrase, because it makes no sense. Evan Nappen  07:05 And now it’s actually. But Rob, now it’s actually had the opposite effect of what they intended. Because in this case law, it creates a limitation, as expressed in Polatov, as to what that actually means, right? Robert Bell  07:24 Correct. They actually have spoken up on what that means, and it’s in part because I pointed out where it came from. I think. Evan Nappen  07:32 I think you’re right. No, absolutely, it’s why. And now what is that phrase now mean in New Jersey, as it applies to the entire weasel clause now, right? Because it modifies the whole weasel clause. What is the standard that has now been determined by Polatov? By that case. Robert Bell  07:53 They seem to have rejected my original argument that it requires repetitive misconduct. But then they go on to say, “character of temperament” means the basic defining qualities of a person’s emotional response. And to lack the basic qualities of one’s emotional response means to have no stable or consistent emotional core necessary for responsible action. In other words, to be so volatile that armament would endanger the interest of the public health, safety or welfare. I don’t know how you prove that someone’s volatile without pointing to multiple instance of misconduct, but. Evan Nappen  08:30 But they are basing that, very importantly, on Koons v. Platkin, correct? Robert Bell  08:40 Correct. Evan Nappen  08:40 Now, what is the quote that the Court relies upon, which is extremely significant, because now we have, for the first time, a New Jersey appellate case law getting published utilizing the federal win, the federal law in our favor, and now that becomes part of New Jersey state law fighting, right? It’s very significant. It bridges the state to the federal. What did they do, Rob? What did they do? Robert Bell  09:16 They quoted Koons v Platkin when they said that the weasel clause must focus on whether the applicant armed with a firearm poses a danger to the public. So, we’re running in circles with vague rules. Evan Nappen  09:31 But now we have the standard of the violence and danger to public. We’ve seen many times in the denial that it has nothing. They put forward nothing to do with violence or danger that they don’t ever deny, as this case illustrates. What did the judge deny him for? Nothing having to do with violence? Robert Bell  09:57 Credibility. Evan Nappen  09:59 Right! Robert Bell  09:59 Credibility. Evan Nappen  10:00 Which is not a basis. And so, this is going to have the effect of cutting down a lot of the wrongful denials that we’ve encountered, that we’ve seen. Robert Bell  10:13 It’s certainly something we can use to smack back them. Evan Nappen  10:16 Yes. Now, we want to see it go further, of course, and to finally be taken out as utterly and completely unconstitutional to even have this type of disqualifier in the gun laws. But what has been accomplished here, with the Polatov case, is incorporating the federal wins in gun law, the federal case law into state law, and establishing a more narrowing. It narrows more the “public health, safety, or welfare” disqualifier than we had prior to the law being changed. Robert Bell  11:04 Oh, yes, because now it has to focus on the applicant. People used to get denied permits for individuals who live in their house with them. If they were a convicted felon, if they were under a restraining order, if they had been involuntarily committed, something like that. Evan Nappen  11:18 Right! And that is a classic that we see going on all the time in New Jersey with an innocent third party. They attempt to disarm the innocent third party because of some other party in the household who is otherwise disqualified. Teddy Nappen  11:37 Didn’t they just pass t

  Episode 281-Don’t be a Dingus about the Dingus Law Also Available On Searchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 12 Gun Lawyer — Episode 281 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS New Jersey gun law, accidental discharge, Fifth Amendment rights, criminal charges, licensing revocation, public health safety, misdemeanor offense, felony conviction, reckless conduct, gun safety, legal advice, jury trial, Second Amendment rights, gun ownership, legal protections. SPEAKERS Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen, Speaker 2 Evan Nappen 00:16 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:17 And I’m Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen 00:19 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. Say, Teddy, I see you sent me something interesting that you found online. Teddy Nappen 00:26 Well, I always like to check on the Reddit retards to see what they’re saying. Evan Nappen 00:32 Oh, my God. And yeah, you did find some stuff that is very much of concern here, because I don’t want to see any of our people have a problem or get into trouble. And it made it clear to me just how important this Accidental Discharge (AD), the Dingus Law, in New Jersey, is. It is having a tremendous effect, and folks have got to know about it. They’ve got to understand that this is genuine. Teddy Nappen 00:59 And also to be clear, not everyone on Reddit is retarded, but everyone who’s retarded is on Reddit just saying. Evan Nappen 01:06 Ah, okay. Well, I’m glad to know the rules here. But what I want to do is go through the commentary to a certain degree. It is extremely important that individuals don’t make this mistake, because this change is dramatic to New Jersey’s law. And then it instantly has put forward Fifth Amendment rights that must be utilized by gun owners in New Jersey in order to protect themselves. Because the ramifications here are not just criminal, not just potential exposure to a year and a half in State Prison for a mere accident, but also loss of your Second Amendment rights. And not just loss of your rights from becoming a Page – 2 – of 12 convicted felon. Even if criminal charges are not pursued, you’re still going to face potential licensing revocation, pulling you in under the disqualifier of public health, safety, and welfare, what I call the all-inclusive miscellaneous weasel clause that they will use to further disarm you. Evan Nappen 02:19 I’ve encountered case after case after case after case of this. I’ve been, you know, practicing New Jersey gun law now for 40 years. I’ve seen what accidental discharges cause to the individual. I’m not making this up. This is real, and it is a real concern. And they’ve just poured gasoline on the fire by passing this new law that essentially criminalizes this to a degree that it has never been criminalized before. So, our rights become even more critical, and I want to make sure that folks understand this law. So, I’m going to review it and talk about some of the misinformation and such that is out there. And how, again, the anti-Second Amendment, the gun rights oppressionists, how they have structured this law to get it through. To make it have a facial appearance, and yet its effect is hidden until it pounds you, the unsuspecting gun owner. I understand how this system works, and I’ve seen what they do. So, they pass these laws, and in effect, they’re sneaky as all hell. This is a sneaky law that is there to disenfranchise gun owners. Teddy Nappen 03:57 Also the fact that anyone who thinks, oh, this will never happen to me. Oh, I’m a very responsible gun owner. They hate you. That is why they’re laying these traps. And anyone who thinks that this can’t happen to you, tell yourself, oh, I’ve never been in a car accident before. Anyone has ever thought that until it happens. Evan Nappen 04:19 Man, I cannot tell you how many times in the practice of gun law in New Jersey, I’ve had the client say, man, I never thought I’d be calling you. I’ve heard that uncountable numbers of times. I never thought I’d be calling you. Yet here I am. And, frankly, I want the word out so people understand this, and I’m going to deal more with that very fact and the reality of that in some of the commentary that’s here, because it also deserves to be addressed. I’m going to do that. Evan Nappen 04:53 So, first, let’s take a look at the law so you can really understand what the traps are. They’re sneaky tricks. How they passed this, and they know what they’re doing. They know what they’re doing. And they fool the public and create the ability here for the oppressionists to go after the unsuspecting folks that are thinking they’re doing the right thing. So, New Jersey, as you may or may not know, has utterly criminalized accidental discharge, and it is now in law, signed by Murphy. (https://pub.njleg.state.nj.us/Bills/2024/A5000/4976_R2.PDF) Evan Nappen 05:36 The law begins by talking about “recklessly”, and saying, oh yeah, recklessly has the same meaning found in the criminal law. It’s what reckless has always meant, and we will review that in a minute. Then it goes on to define what a structure is. And it says. “‘Structure’ means any building, room, ship, vessel, car, vehicle, or airplane, and also means any place adapted for overnight accommodation of persons or for carrying business therein.” Okay, that’s about as broad as you can get. It’s almost everywhere, Page – 3 – of 12 right? Almost everywhere. So, why is that important? Because it’s that “structure” trick, that “structure” trap, that they weave into the law here. So that if you have an accidental discharge, even though they’re selling this law, look, a person commits a disorderly person’s offense. That’s the New Jersey level of misdemeanor. It’s just a DP. It’s not a felony, just a disorderly person’s offense. Evan Nappen 06:37 “. . . by recklessly discharging a firearm using live ammunition rounds unlawfully or without a lawful purpose . . .” And there you go. It’s so freaking reasonable. It’s so reasonable. No, it is outrageously unreasonable. And here’s why. Because when you actually are going to face this, here’s what’s going to hit you in the face, folks. Here’s what it’s going to be. Number one, oh yeah, it’s a disorderly person’s offense. So, hey, at least it’s not a felony. I’m not going to become a convicted felon, right? Well, if you go down a little bit in the law, it says. A person who commits a violation of this section shall be charged with a crime of one degree higher than what would ordinarily be charged if the violation occurs within 100 yards of an occupied structure. Wait a minute! That occupied structure was any building, room, ship, vessel, car, airplane, or any other place that’s adopted for overnight accommodation or for carrying on business. Oh, you mean, basically, everywhere! Evan Nappen 07:46 Oh, so, wait a minute. It’s one degree higher for just about everything. Unless you’re in the middle of the woods and have an AD with the trees, that’s about it, you know. Short of that, you’re just about guaranteed to be within a structure, the way they’ve written, “within 100 yards of a structure”. It’s one degree higher. Well, what’s one degree higher than a disorderly persons offense? Felony level, fourth degree crime. Felony level. A year and a half in State Prison, folks. Okay? What does that mean? It means that is a disqualifier for the entire United States if you become convicted of that AD charge. Even if you don’t get a day in jail, it’s a fourth degree felony. You’re officially a convicted felon and a prohibited person, disenfranchised of your gun rights for the entire United States. So, that’s what an AD now means in New Jersey. Felony conviction. It would be the rarest of exception if it wasn’t charged as at least a fourth degree felony in New Jersey. So get that through your head first, straight away. Evan Nappen 09:10 Now, what about this reckless, recklessly, reckless. Okay. So, here going into Reddit.com and looking at the discussion and what have you. Okay, that’s all good. One of the folks there said they don’t agree with me, but I’m not a lawyer, and no sense taking a risk. You don’t need to. But then they go and quote, “recklessly” discharge. You can emphasize reckless, and then pull the legal definition of reckless, which is fine. You may recall, we actually even in the show. We discussed it. We reviewed reckless. Let’s take another look so we can fully understand what reckless means in New Jersey and how it interweaves to this new law. So, recklessly, a person, now this is the definition in New Jersey law of just recklessly. A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense, when he consciously disregards a substantial risk, a substantial and unjustifiable risk, that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that considering the nature and purpose of the actor’s conduct and the circumstances known to him, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation. Page – 4 – of 12 Evan Nappen 10:50 Okay. I know that’s confusing or sounds like a lot of legal mumbo jumbo. It’s not, and let me show you where the pressure points come in, where the gotchas are there for New Jersey citizens. In reality, in the reality of the practice of law here, conscious disregard. Again, what? There is a consciously disregard substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists. What’s the material element existing in the AD? That a gun will fire. Okay? Material element. You’re disregarding that a gun will fire. And why would a gun fire? Well, if the actor’s conduct and c

  Episode 280-Top 7 NJ Carry Guns Also Available On Searchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 11 Gun Lawyer — Episode 280 Transcript SPEAKERS Speaker 3, Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen Evan Nappen 00:17 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:19 and I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:21 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. Hey, Teddy, guess who finally quit smoking? Teddy Nappen 00:28 You quit smoking? Evan Nappen 00:30 No. The Ayatollah Khomeini. Teddy Nappen 00:32 Oh! Evan Nappen 00:35 There you go. Actually, the thing is, we’re now in a situation where you may have seen the warnings going out about an increased, seriously increased, threat of danger in the homeland. For the, who knows, how many that the Biden administration let in, actual terrorists on the terrorist watch list, and how many unknowns and got aways, and just all those folks that have infiltrated the country that they’re warning about sleeper cells and already starting to see some incidents occurring. And I think it’s fair to say that we all need to be very vigilant, and since most of us are folks that are armed, that carry, we become an important element in the defense of our country. Evan Nappen 01:39 So, I want to talk today about practical considerations regarding firearm carry guns in New Jersey. We want to talk about the guns that are appropriate and are really some of the top most popular carry guns in New Jersey. Now, none of this means these are guns we’re going to talk about that make it that. You know, if you choose to carry any gun that you like, that’s fine. None of this is critical of any firearm that you may be carrying. I just want to talk about ones. It was inspired to talk about this from an article I found in Breitbart. Now Breitbart’s article is the “Five Concealed Carry Guns First-Time Buyers Should Consider”. (https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2026/03/03/five-concealed-carry-guns-first-time-buyers-should-consider/) Page – 2 – of 11 Evan Nappen 02:30 and I want to. Teddy Nappen 02:32 Number one, Gyrojet pistol. Evan Nappen 02:34 Right. Definitely grab that old Gyrojet. Oh, my God. In case you don’t know what a Gyrojet is, it was, literally, a rocket firing pistol. It launched cartridges or bullets or projectiles, if you will, in a similar way that you fire rockets, not a bullet. So, it’s actually, a gyro jet gun is closer to an Iranian missile launcher, frankly, than a gun. But they were not a commercial success. They’re very collectible and fascinating. You can read more about Gyrojets online. I happen to own a Gyrojet as an example of a rocket pistol. But no, that’s not a gun I would suggest carrying in New Jersey. Evan Nappen 03:27 First of all, it’s too valuable just to carry, and the ammo is like incredibly hard to find. Each cartridge is very valuable as a collectible in and of itself. But here it is from Breitbart. Now this article is by AWR Hawkins, who’s an excellent gun writer, and as he begins the article, he says, with military action in Iran raging and concerns about staying safe stateside, we thought it would be helpful to put together a list of five concealed carry guns that first time buyers should consider. So, I’m going to, and that’s a good thought right now, what we’re dealing with. I’m going to modify from what he’s talking about, is just to carry guns in New Jersey, whether you’re first time or not a first time. There are advantages and disadvantages to a number of the firearms that they’re putting out, and we have to put in the concerns that we have in New Jersey. One of the primary concerns at the moment in New Jersey is, of course, that you can’t have a magazine that holds over 10 rounds. So, the handguns that we’re going to carry in New Jersey have to have a limitation in the magazine of 10 rounds. Now, that does not include one round in the chamber. So, in theory, you can have 10 rounds in a magazine and one round in the chamber, and you are legal in New Jersey for that carry gun. Evan Nappen 04:56 So, what happens is there are a number of handguns out there that, of course, are wonderful, wonderful guns. They are larger frame and normally hold standard magazine capacity definitely over 10 rounds. And you can start, you know, with just a Glock 19 that would have the standard magazine of 15 rounds. An excellent carry gun and super popular. But in New Jersey, putting aside, let’s just say the Glock 19 happens to fit your hand really well, and I understand that. But in reality, you’re carrying a gun that is larger than you necessarily need. Again, if it works for you, that’s fine, but it’s larger than you necessarily need, which makes it arguably somewhat less concealable. And yet you’re being limited in one of the nice features about it is that you could have the increased firepower of 15 rounds, but New Jersey stops you from that. So, you have to have a 10-round mag in your Glock 19, that’s a nine millimeter. Evan Nappen 06:04 So since New Jersey is forcing us to have 10 round mags, why not conform, at least to the degree of having a much more concealable, but just as deadly, more concealable handgun that would carry up to Page – 3 – of 11 the 10 rounds. And in our modern world today, there are a lot of excellent choices of, you know, nine millimeter and other calibers. But nine is primarily one of the most popular self-defense calibers out there at the moment that hold 10 rounds, but are very compact, very concealable. And the article lists these, and let’s talk about some. Some others that I’ll add in. Evan Nappen 06:57 They put as the number one, the Sig Sauer P365. So, the P365 is an excellent carry gun for sure, and it’s very compact. And as you know, Sig re-designed or created into the design. They designed a gun around the magazine so they could have a 10-round magazine and have a gun that is extremely compact. The P365 is striker fired, and it’s about, you know, 4.3 inches tall, about 5.8 inches long. It weighs in at about 17.8 ounces, and it comes with two 10-round mags. So, it’s New Jersey legal. There’s all kinds of you can get go MOS. It’s set up for that so you can have your sites if you get an MOS model. There are many different variations on the P365 that will have features that may fit you better. It’s a proven gun. So, it’s definitely one of the most popular and definitely a good choice for New Jersey. Evan Nappen 08:10 The next gun in the article is the Glock 43X and that’s also one of the most popular pistols in America. It’s single stack. So, what that means is the magazine loads one round on top of the other, as opposed to the SIG 365 which is kind of that double stack, where the rounds are kind of side by side in the magazine, filling it up as a box. Whereas the Glock is single, straight down in the line, and they do, and it does have a 10-round mag. The Glock is somewhat slightly larger. It’s about 6.5 inches long, and it’s about 1.1 inches in width, and about 5.04 inches in its height, tall. It weighs in at about 18.7 ounces. So, it’s a slightly heavier, slightly larger than the P365. But it’s very popular, very concealable, and it has a 10-round magazine. Evan Nappen 09:29 Now keep in mind that it’s possible for any of these guns, the Sig, or any of these two, of course, to have magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. But they’re essentially made from their creation as a 10-round gun, and that’s important in New Jersey. Because, at the moment, and hopefully this will go away, but at the moment, we’re restricted to that. So, having the concealable ability of being very, very stealthy and not being made, let’s say, as being a carrier. Because you’re concealing a firearm so well, you’re less likely to have printing and other issues where it can be kind of signaled to folks that you might be carrying, which is a good way to think when dealing with New Jersey. Because even though we have a carry permit, even though we’re legal to carry, discretion is still the word of the day. So, you want to remain discrete. Evan Nappen 10:27 Your best bet is for no one to know that you’re carrying in New Jersey, and that is both the cops and the criminals. We need to be discrete because we’ve experienced many times through the office that individuals, where their gun is somehow ID on the person, and even though they’re legal, maybe their shirt showed for a brief second, which the law actually understands can happen. It’s not a crime when that happens. But the next thing you know, police are called about somebody carrying a gun, or they believe someone has a gun, and it can escalate into all kinds of problems. So, the idea in New Jersey Page – 4 – of 11 is to be able to be armed and be armed to the max that the law allows us to be. But to keep the concealability factor and the discretion and discreteness very tight. We are NOT an open carry state. We want to make it so that that firearm gives you a tactical edge in the fact that should you need it, the use of it is, to a certain degree, giving you the advantage of surprise. So, keep that in mind. And so these guns are fitting that bill very nicely. Evan Nappen 11:42 Now the article also talks about the CZ P-10 C, which is a ported pistol. This is also a compact gun and also has the 10-round magazine. The CZ is interesting because the German army actually adopted this pistol model, you know, and so it has certain definite reliability. And a lot of folks like the ergonomics, but it, too, is polymer, and in the same kind of class as the 365 and the 43X. Again, it’s a good choice for New Jersey, should you like that gun. Now, the article talks about the Palmetto Dagger. Palmetto is a decent gun for the money. And let me tell you, they’re a bargain, that’s for sure. They are budget orie

  Episode 279-Bang or Bong. Maybe both. Also Available On Searchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 11 Gun Lawyer — Episode 279 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Supreme Court case, marijuana user ban, Second Amendment rights, ACLU, NRA, New Jersey, Hughes amendment, West Virginia, machine guns, loopholes, gun rights, felon restoration, Epstein files, Michael Bloomberg, gun violence prevention. SPEAKERS Speaker 2, Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen Evan Nappen 00:16 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:18 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:20 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, we have some exciting things coming in the future here. I want to make sure the listeners are well aware. In the Supreme Court, we have a case coming up that is going to look at the prohibitor for firearm possession concerning marijuana use, if you’re a user of marijuana. And the case is U.S. versus Hemani. This is very interesting, because it is widely believed that the Court is going to strike down the gun ban for marijuana users. Regardless of how you feel about marijuana use, I’m looking forward to seeing this opinion, because it may be useful in knocking down other gun disqualifiers. Because, folks, gun disqualifiers, such as the gun ban for marijuana use, is an area of exploitation by the gun rights oppressors. Evan Nappen 01:38 So, if they can’t just get a flat out gun ban through, which they try to do all the time, if they can piece meal gun bans to various classes of individuals, then they get the job done that way. That’s why you see the ever expanding list of persons who they try to get disqualified from being able to exercise their Second Amendment rights. And this case has, I believe, potentially very far reaching implications as to subverting that anti-gun rights, that gun rights oppression tactic. So, we want to look at it at as more than just the marijuana. It will be fascinating to see it be a victory, because we have parties in support of this ban going away as diverse as, on the same side now, the ACLU and the NRA. Both. The ACLU is in favor of getting rid of the marijuana user gun ban, because it is, of course, beneficial to in their view, I’m sure, legalization of marijuana, which is something that they would be in support. The NRA is in favor of it going away, because it is consistent with The NRA’s position of supporting Second Amendment rights. So, this has created the classic strange bedfellows situation. (https://www.marijuanamoment.net/aclu-attorney-confident-supreme-court-will-strike-down-gun-ban-for-marijuana-users-after-oral-arguments-next-week/ ) Page – 2 – of 11 Evan Nappen 03:28 But ultimately, what we see coming from it should be a victory for gun rights. And I believe and hope it will be even further reaching than simply addressing the marijuana question. It’s going to be, I believe, very helpful in fighting other disqualifications. Remember, New Jersey is one of the states that tries to always have an expansive list of what disqualifies a person from being able to exercise their Second Amendment rights. They love to create disenfranchisements of our rights because they are rights oppressors, and this tactic, hopefully, will be taking a hit here. So, we’ll keep you informed about the progress and what occurs under the Hemani decision. Teddy Nappen 04:30 I will say, just from the ACLU, just to be clear, they are heavily backed by the Democrat for their super PACs. I’m just saying. Like that is the, and I can’t wait to see all the individuals of the ACLU all out in mass as they’re about to help win a pro-gun victory as well. Yeah. Evan Nappen 04:55 I guess they’re looking at it more as a pro-marijuana victory and ending prejudice toward marijuana users. But whatever their motivation may be, we are going to be consistent in our support for Second Amendment rights. Getting rid of disqualifiers is getting rid of disqualifiers that are disenfranchisements to our Second Amendment rights. So, hey, at least they’re on the right side on this one, and maybe we can get them to continue to see the light on other disqualifiers. Such as restoration of rights for felons and such, right? I mean, this is something you would think they would be in favor of, as well, for restoration of rights. You paid your dues. You served your time. And if you’re not a violent felon, why are you disenfranchised of your rights? I mean, even violent felons, when you get right down to it. I mean, there’s, I missed that in the Second Amendment, where it says we have a right to keep and bear arms, unless you’re a felon, you know, or any of these exemptions. They aren’t there. So, to what degree we tolerate them, to what degree we may think they’re even valuable, I don’t know, but we need to. I’d rather be seeing us pull back on every type of ban and maximize freedom and maximize our Second Amendment rights. Evan Nappen 06:31 Also, in regards to maximizing our rights, there is a really interesting I just love this. I love this. There is an attempt, now, a very shrewd attempt on the pro-rights side to create the ability to get around, yes, a loophole, folks. Because you know what loopholes are. Loopholes are freedom finding a way. And this. Teddy Nappen 07:08 I thought it was a hole in a Castle. Evan Nappen 07:10 Yeah. Right, exactly. Loopholes were the hole in the castle that you would fire your arrows from, because you would still be protected. You could still fire through those, those square, rectangular hole. They’re the loopholes. So, that’s why they’re called that. But, anyway. The key loophole here is in the Hughes Amendment. What there’s an attempt to do, particularly in West Virginia, who has taken the lead here with a bill in West Virginia, which is SB 1071. This is right from AmmoLand, by the way. Page – 3 – of 11 (https://www.ammoland.com/2026/02/contact-chairman-willis-now-sb1071-could-restore-machine-gun-rights-in-west-virginia-if-it-gets-a-hearing/) It could restore access to modern machine guns. That’s right. Evan Nappen 08:00 What they’re doing, what they’re attempting to do is a bill that will create a state run Office of Public Defense within the West Virginia State Police. To procure and sell modern, select-fire machine guns directly to qualified, law-abiding citizens. That’s right. You know how some states have State liquor stores. This will become the state machine gun store. That’s right. It can operate via the Hughes Amendment. Now, the Hughes Amendment was the law back in ’86 that prohibited the, I mean, actually the Hughes Amendment prohibited the new, the sale of new manufacture of machine guns. Okay? So, that created this situation we have now where it’s legal for a citizen to obey the NFA and acquire a machine gun and pay the $200 tax. But the problem is no new machine guns could be put into registration, you see. And that created this essentially, artificially, ridiculously high, crazy prices to own full auto. So, this bill takes the Hughes Amendment and essentially flips the script on the Hughes Amendment by stating that, and this is under Title 18 922(o), that the Hughes Amendment. Here’s, the key loophole language. “. . . does not apply with respect to a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, a State or any department or political subdivision thereof.” Evan Nappen 10:20 So, in other words, the bill will create a State agency that purchases machine guns and transfers them by quote, right in the law, “by or under the authority of”, the State of West Virginia. The transfers are therefore fully compliant with federal law and critically exempt from the National Firearms Act $200 transfer tax because they’re government facilitated. It’s brilliant. It’s brilliant. It’ll make it so that qualified persons, any adult, who can legally possess firearms under federal and state law, they’d undergo a background check at state police, state police troop headquarters. The office would, where possible, prioritize West Virginia manufacturers, operate distribution points using existing facilities, and issue official state certificates of transfer. Subsequent transfers between qualified citizens would require a simple $275 re-transfer fee through the office, which is waived for heirs. A $250 surcharge per gun plus a modest administrative fee capped at 50 bucks, would flow to the new Public Defense Fund to cover costs, generating revenue for the state without raising taxes. Evan Nappen 11:48 And it was GOA (Gun Owners of America) that drafted this bill. This is really cool. And now I think Kansas is putting a bill forward, and I’m sure we’ll see other pro-gun states moving to create this. This way we can gut the Hughes Amendment and open up the market for new full auto. And by doing that, they’ll become even more commonly owned and become an even greater argument for the Second Amendment and their protection. Eventually, with enough exploitation of loopholes, laws themselves that created the original ban become useless and in fact, go away. We’ve seen this happen. We’ve seen this happen. For example, when it came to NFA Trusts, to purchase NFA, you had to get, at one point, what was called a chief law enforcement officer to sign off. And if your chief didn’t sign off on that, you could not appeal it. You were just dead in the water and could not acquire NFA. Then along comes the idea of setting up a trust where trusts do not require a chief law enforcement to sign off. So, everyone started doing NFA Trusts to acquire NFA, because it avoided the Chiefs sign off. And Page – 4 – of 11 because of that, there were about 10,000 trusts at ATF on NFA. So many just got around it that they finally just repealed the rule and said, guess what? You don’t need to have your chief

  Episode 278-Don’t Let Them Memory Hole Us Also Available On Searchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Mass shooting, Canada, gun laws, mental health, firearm license, self-defense, transgender, mandatory buyback, gun control, observational awareness, situational awareness, gun rights, New Jersey, firearm industry, de-banking. SPEAKERS Teddy Nappen, Speaker 2 Teddy Nappen  00:17 I’m Teddy Nappen, and welcome to Gun Lawyer. I wanted to kind of address this to the audience, as this has been kind of brushed over. There’s been multiple mass shootings, but there was one that caught my eye. They are trying to effectively bury in the stories. Like, I don’t even see it that much coming the news. The mass shooting in Canada! Every single one of the Left’s arguments on how to stop a mass shooting, everything that they push for, demonstrated in Canada failed. The Left always argues that stricter gun laws will prevent a mass shooting. If it saves one life. Even though  2.7 million lives are saved with self-defense uses of a firearm. If it saves one life. They always argue the accessibility of firearms –  that’s what leads to mass shootings. Teddy Nappen  01:15 So, I want to kind of lean into this story where nine people were shot and killed, 27 were injured in the mass shooting in Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia. (https://www.junonews.com/p/exclusive-family-confirms-identity) It was a man identifying as a woman, which, you know, that’s one of the other reasons why they’re burying the story. It doesn’t fit the narrative of the straight, white, right wing conservative as the shooter. So, obviously we can’t talk about it. You hear from the North District Commander Ken Floyd of the gun person. Yeah, person. Always good to not misgender the school shooter. He murdered his mother, but also shot his step brother as well. Don’t bring up that fact. Also, a troubled house life, and the school that he shot up, of course, he was thrown out of the school. Police had been called to the home multiple times. They had multiple instances with this individual who had reported mental health problems. Huh, interesting. Teddy Nappen  02:21 Oh, and it gets better. So, the suspect had a firearm license, which, by the way, in Canada, you cannot possess a firearm for self-defense – only hunting. Keep that in mind. Supposedly, the guns recovered were a long gun and a “modified handgun”. They don’t go into details as to what was modified. So, the suspect, the shooter, the man identifying as a woman, I’m going to repeat that, the suspect had dropped out of the Tumbler Ridge Secondary School four years ago and was not a student at the time. So, police had attended the suspect’s residence multiple times in the past several years, dealing with mental health occurrences. Hmm, wonder why? When he started identifying as a woman? You know, that usually leads to that 42% suicide rate. The only group that is close to that rate is paranoid schizophrenics. But you know, facts are transphobic and homophobic, apparently. This included one of the attendants where, two years ago, the firearms were seized under criminal code. He was Red Flagged! Oh, he had multiple mental health instances. So, obviously we’ve got to seize his guns. The very argument by the Left to stop mass shootings. But, of course, because the man identified as a woman, then of course, well, we can’t, we don’t want to be transphobic. Let’s give him, oh, sorry, her back his firearms. Teddy Nappen  03:53 And, of course, suspect was born a biological male and then started transitioning six years ago. So, six years  ago, he started transitioning and identified as a woman. Two years ago, the firearms are seized, so then he can say, oh, sorry, I think I’m a woman, so give me back my firearms, even though the police have come multiple times for multiple mental health incidents. Other than that, though, let’s give him back his guns. So, right there we have a clear demonstration of the fact that his firearms were seized and then he got, you know, Red Flagged. They actually have it. I pulled the law under their Public Safety website emergency prohibition order. (https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/cntrng-crm/frrms/rd-flg-lws-en.aspx) A judge issues the order if they believe the individual poses a risk to themselves or others. When the order was issued, firearms, and firearm license and other documents and other weapons may be removed up to 30 days, and you have a hearing date. He goes to the hearing date and says, I want my guns back. And here they are given back and then does the shooting. The level. It’s just so disgusting. The system works every time. He got the guns back, and then boom, goes right into a mass shooting. Teddy Nappen  05:12 By the way, Canada is one of the most strictest places you could find for a firearm. You cannot get firearms for self-defense uses. They ban every form of semi-auto possible. Their laws are extremely, extremely difficult in order to get firearms. Also, Trudeau did a freeze on the sale, purchase, or transfer of handguns, stopping all handgun purchases. It’s still in effect. So, you can’t get a handgun to defend yourself. You have no means of purchase except for hunting, and every single one of the anti-gun, the gun rights oppressors, the Left’s whole argument about trying to stop mass shootings. We need all of these things. Well, Canada had all these things. A ban on extended mags. All the bans that you could have on every semi-auto possible, and it still wasn’t enough. And still led to a mass shooting. Every protocol failed. Teddy Nappen  06:13 And by the way, this isn’t the first. Quite frankly, Canada is the inventor of the mass shooter. On December 6, 1989, at Montreal’s Ecole Polytechnique 14 women were killed as a student went through shooting up the place. (https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/polytechnique-tragedy) And that was their justification for all their anti-gun agendas. This is what they said, oh, we’ve got to go after firearms. He just walked through the school and just started shooting the people. They had no means of defense. Then in 2006 a gunman killed one woman and injured 19 others at Montreal college being (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/sep/15/topstories3.internationaleducationnews) He was shot dead by the police saying he wanted to die like Romeo and Juliet. Okay. The man must have been an acting major, a fan of Shakespeare. Teddy Nappen  07:00 And then cut to, I love this one. In 2020, Canada’s deadliest mass shooting. The shooter was Gabriel Wortman. His wife, Lisa Banfield, goes into details in her book, “The First Survivor: Life With Canada’s Deadliest Mass Shooter.” Wortman walks through and kills 22 people in the span of 13 hours, dressed up as a Mountie. He went across a 200 kilometer stretch. Shooting people for 13 hours, 13 hours. Going up and down, shooting and killing people. And no one was there to defend themselves. No one has any guns. This is in 2020. But the Left doesn’t want you to know that. Teddy Nappen  07:44 Just like they don’t want you to know that every time when they hailed Venezuela as the great socialist experiment, when you have Bernie Sanders, who was honeymooning in the Soviet Union and arguing that Cuba has the best healthcare. They always move the goal post or they’ll memory hole it. Trying to make the argument. Oh, this doesn’t fit the narrative. So, we can’t talk about this. That’s how disgusting these people are. And by the way, they even have their mandatory buyback program in Canada. By the way, it’s a complete failure, too. They got like 200 guns. No one’s complying. And that was the thing that The Trace even argued. They said that the hardest part about running a mandatory gun buyback is compliance. Because unless you’re going to go door to door at the barrel of a gun and stealing people’s property, gun buybacks, mandatory gun buyback programs fail every time. So, this ends the debate. This factually ends the debate that every single means of gun control that they argue to stop a mass shooting will not stop a mass shooting. Teddy Nappen  08:52 Not to mention that it is part of our culture where guns are. It’s, yeah, I’m trying to remember the numbers, and it was like 350 million. I can but it’s the we already have a mass number of firearms in the United States. So, the Nirvana fallacy, logical fallacy of trying to argue, if we just get rid of all the guns, there’ll be no mass shootings. No. Because the Left need to understand that there is evil in this world. There is evil. Yeah, they always say. They always try to justify it. Like, oh, I’m poor, I’m impoverished, I’m an illegal who came to this country. They always argue that, trying to justify evil and just accepting the fact. They try to mislabel evil. There is evil in this world, and you have to accept that there will always be terrible people wanting to commit terrible acts. Cut to, you know, taking a car and just running into a crowd of people at a Christmas parade. Cut to the U.K. with random stabbings and their mass pile of rapes that they don’t want to talk about. There will always be evil in this world, and they have to accept it. That is what needs to be brought. So, going on that cheery note, let’s talk about our good friends at WeShoot. Teddy Nappen  10:19 Well, WeShoot is a range in Lakewood. It’s an indoor range where both myself and my father go to shoot. We love to go there. WeShoot is conveniently located right off the Parkway. They have some cool specials that I want to tell you about. The Smith M&P 9M 2.0 Compact is ready to roll. They have that. They’re also offering an M&P 9M 2.0 in metal. So, you can have your choice in metal or polymer. There is the Vortex Triu

  Episode 277-Three-Round Burst of GOFU’s Also Available On Searchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 11 Gun Lawyer — Episode 277 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS GOFUs, New Jersey gun laws, vampire rule, sensitive places, unlawful possession, pretrial detention, federal injunction, carry permit, gun transport, Second Amendment, gun rights, legal advice, gun ownership, gun regulations, gun safety, gun culture. 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 00:21 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, you know our show here, one of the things that is very, very famous about our show are GOFUs. And GOFUs, as my listeners know, are Gun Owner F**k Ups. The idea with GOFUs is these are real cases, actual things that happened. They are expensive lessons that people learn, and that you, the listener, get to learn for free. And of course, we always do the GOFU at the end of the show, whatever this week’s GOFU may be. But suddenly I’ve been pounded with GOFUs, and they’re very important. And I said, you know what? We’re going to do a three round burst here of some really important GOFUs, including what I want to begin with by telling you about this actual case. It illustrates just how insane New Jersey is and what every law-abiding gun owner could, in fact, face. Evan Nappen 01:32 Of course, I’m not using any names, but this is an actual situation that occurred. And some things, looking at the situation that the, and not just necessarily a mistake that the gun owner did, but something that hit me as extremely important for every New Jersey gun owner to make sure they do. There’s a very simple thing that is very important that could be critical between whether or not they hold you in jail or release you. We’re going to get to that from this story so you’ll learn this secret, so that you don’t end up in this GOFU situation. Spending days or weeks incarcerated for nothing, because that’s what the Gulag does, as you know. This is a case that wraps it all up into that. Evan Nappen 02:39 So, here’s this guy who comes into New Jersey, and he’s at a mall. Now, as you may know, the mall is not, in and of itself, a sensitive place, right? Those of us who have familiarized ourself, which hopefully all of you have, with these “sensitive places”. A mall is not, per se, a sensitive place. Now, there can be rules regarding malls where they say, hey, no guns in the mall. We don’t want guns, you know. And any Page – 2 – of 11 private property, whether open to the public or not, can have a prohibition privately saying we don’t want any guns here. In the same way they could say, we don’t want any dogs. We don’t want any bare feet. You know, things like that. The property owner has certain control. But if there is such a sign, if there is such a statement by a property owner, then if you come on to that property and they don’t want you on that property for a reason such as that. They can’t say, hey, we don’t allow minorities on our property. You know, they can’t. You can’t have racial discrimination in a place open to the public. But you can have other restrictions. Evan Nappen 04:07 Now, I happen to personally think that firearms should be viewed as a civil right and in the same category as discrimination, because it is a civil right. But that’s not currently how the law is. So, if a private entity prohibits gun, says no guns, then if you still go on that property and you’re specifically told to leave and don’t, then you’re what’s known as a defiant trespasser. So, what we’re talking about is trespassing, but trespassing is not a sensitive place violation. Sensitive place violations are specific gun law violations that create a certain place that becomes a prohibited area under the law to carry a gun, even if you have a permit to carry. So, this person is in the mall and apparently gets approached by mall security, who has allegedly dogs that can sniff gunpowder. Believe it or not, they’re out there. Apparently, he’s approached and they say, we think you have a gun. Please leave. And he does. No problem. He was asked to leave, and he leaves. Evan Nappen 05:30 After leaving, while in his car, driving, he gets stopped by police. More than even one because, oh, there’s a gun, right? Because, obviously, security called it in, I guess, at some point, and he was stopped. He is stopped for violating, in their minds, the sensitive place prohibition under Section 24 under Chapter 58 of the sensitive places. And what is that? What is that sensitive place that they believe he’s in violation of? Oh, New Jersey’s version of the vampire rule. The vampire rule is that you need permission before you go onto any private property. That is the issue that’s before the United States Supreme Court. The Hawaii, you know, the Woolford case in front of SCOTUS. We’re waiting for a decision. Evan Nappen 06:43 Now, Hawaii had the law just like New Jersey. The only difference is New Jersey’s vampire rule case saying that you can’t go on to private property, whether open to the public or not open to the public, you cannot go on any private property in New Jersey unless you first have permission to carry your gun there. In other words, they needed to have a sign, you know, that says we love guns. You know, basically, guns welcome. You know, guns permitted. Essentially, a sign. Or you got specific permission from the property owner before you enter the property. Hence the vampire rule. You know, as long as you don’t invite the vampire in to your place. That’s where that comes from. Evan Nappen 07:34 Well, New Jersey’s vampire rule, to impose this, you need permission first, before you can go on private property, even private property open to the public, has been found and was found unconstitutional in the Koons versus Platkin case. In Koons. And in that case, as you may recall, Judge Bump found it was unconstitutional and put an injunction on that section, saying it is unenforceable. It’s Page – 3 – of 11 unconstitutional. That any private property that is open to the public, you’re allowed to bring your gun on unless it’s otherwise a sensitive place. So, you know, if you want to go into a 7-11 with your carry gun, you can. It’s open to the public, even though it’s privately owned by 7-11. Now, if you want to go to a private residence, a private place that’s not open to the public, then you do need advanced permission for that. If you go into even your friend’s house, your friend needs to be able to say, yeah, you have permission to have your gun at my house. But not open to the public. Evan Nappen 09:00 So, the mall is open to the public. The mall is not a per se sensitive place. Yet, in this case, the basis for stopping and arresting this man or woman, I won’t even tell you what the sex is, the basis for the arrest is an alleged violation of the sensitive place section for which there is a federal injunction against enforcement. Then because somehow there’s this belief that if you are in violation of sensitive place, you’re also unlawfully carrying even though you have a carry permit, which makes absolutely no sense. There’s no logic to that. He’s charged with unlawful possession of a handgun without a carry permit, even though he has a carry permit. And, of course, with those gun charges, off to the Gulag you go. So, you are arrested, and you are put in jail. Evan Nappen 10:16 Now, the Gulag kicks in, where there’s 48 hours in which the prosecutor gets to decide whether to seek pretrial detention. It is solely within the discretion of the prosecutor. And if the prosecutor decides to seek pretrial detention, you’re going to be held for another five days before there’s a hearing when we can actually argue to get you out. And with the new law that was just signed by Murphy, they can get an additional five days to make sure that the gun is operable, to get an operability report, which is irrelevant to the charges anyway. So, by this arrest, you actually have the opportunity to be incarcerated basically for two weeks, guilty of nothing. Evan Nappen 11:08 What happened? Well, luckily, I got a call very quickly. When this person was in jail, loved ones got a hold of me. And this is on a Saturday, my friends, on a Saturday. Yeah. They do these on Saturday. They just hired me in time that I was able to get onto the court hearing 15 minutes before that first 48 hour time period, for that very first hearing where there’s no argument. The prosecutor either is going to say we’re seeking pretrial detention or not, but at least I could get on. And, lo and behold, I get on, and the prosecutor, big shock, is seeking pretrial detention, which means he’s going to be held or she is going to be held another five days or so, to have that hearing. It may be longer if they’re going to go for the operability nonsense, too. Teddy Nappen 12:11 Doesn’t Bergen County always seek pretrial detention? Evan Nappen 12:16 Well, it’s not just Bergen. And let me say this isn’t necessarily even Bergen, by the way, Teddy. But most counties have a policy of just automatically seeking pretrial detention on most gun cases. So, that’s not a big surprise. But what happens is, in this 48 hour period here, we still have the court appearance. But there’s nothing an attorney officially can do, because the prosecutor is given the sole Page – 4 – of 11 discretion. The prosecutor says, well, it’s gun charges with the Graves Act. Because, of course, the seriousness of the charge is second degree. You’re looking up to 10 years in State Prison. You’ve got a minimum mandatory three and a half years with no chance of parole. So, because of the seriousness

  Episode 276-NJ’s New Felony Dingus Law  Also Available On Searchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 14 Gun Lawyer — Episode 276 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS New Jersey felony law, accidental discharge, Second Amendment, gun rights, reckless conduct, felony dingus, legal consequences, gun ownership, national reciprocity, pro-gun advocacy, government involvement, legal defense, gun laws, gun ownership statistics, gun control. SPEAKERS Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen Evan Nappen 00:17 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:19 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:20 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. New Jersey now officially has the felony Dingus law. That’s right, folks. It has to do with the criminalization of accidents. That’s it. They’ve been criminalized in New Jersey. Now let me explain why it’s the Dingus law. The reason I call it the Dingus law is that a number of years ago I was in Missouri. It was at the James Farm, Jesse and Frank James Farm. It was a great museum there. It’s a pretty cool place to visit if you’re into western history. You know, Jesse James and such is way up there of one of the fun topics to learn about. As a matter of fact, their famous bank robbery is still the record haul for any bank robbery in the U.S., ever. It was done by James and his gang. In terms of the amount of money stolen, in terms of the value of that money today, versus then, it is the record amount ever stolen. Evan Nappen 01:41 But the thing that’s interesting to me about what happened when I was at that museum is I’m looking at all kinds of things about historical facts about Jesse James and his life and all. I’m reading some things, and it talked about “Dingus” at certain times. You know, talking about things that were going on between him and his men. And I’m like, Dingus, who’s Dingus? So, I asked one of the museum folks there, hey, who is this Dingus that they’re talking about? He goes, oh, that’s Jesse James. What do you mean Jesse James is Dingus? Who called him, you know, Dingus and lived, right? He’s like, no, no, no, no, no. His men did. His men did. What? Why? Well, you see, Jesse was apparently playing around with his gun, practicing spinning or screwing around with it, or who knows what, and he accidentally shot two of his fingers off. It was in front of his men. He shot his fingers off, two of them, and Jesse James would never use profanity. He may have been a stone cold killer, but he would not ever use profanity. So, when he shot his two fingers off, he said, Dingus! Now, I don’t know about you, but if I shot my fingers off, I’d say something a lot more than Dingus. But I guess his men fell off their horses Page – 2 – of 14 laughing, you know, and they nicknamed him Dingus. And I guess if you were one of his men, you could bust his balls and call him Dingus and get away with it. Evan Nappen 03:36 But we call accidental discharges in my office “Dingus” cases in honor of Jesse James, of course. So, any accidental discharge is a Dingus case. Now, I once had a guy that shot himself in the hand with a Glock. And so that, of course, was a Dingus case. This was a number of years ago, and they tried to take away his firearms and his ability to be licensed under that. It wasn’t criminalized, but they did try to disenfranchise him of his gun rights. We fought it hard, and we were able to win and save his gun rights and his gun. About a year later, he shot himself in the hand again with a Sig. So, do you know what he was? He was a Double Dingus. That’s right. Evan Nappen 04:40 Anyway, this new Dingus law, and look, accidents can happen. You can drive your car and have an accident. Accidents happen. But this Dingus law that New Jersey has passed is a felony Dingus law. It now turns accidents into a New Jersey felony. A felony level offense. It’s very important that you understand this, because now it is actually law in New Jersey, and you have to know your rights. You have to stand on your rights. Or you not only risk losing your Second Amendment rights, but you also risk becoming a felon, going to State Prison, and having your life essentially destroyed over this. Because becoming a convicted felon can dramatically affect your career, and your ability to earn a living. Your existence becomes one of a second class citizen, and not just in terms of gun rights. Evan Nappen 05:52 So, I want to do a deep dive here into the felony Dingus law that New Jersey has now made law. And I want to make it clear so that you, my dear listeners, know what to do to protect yourself and hear it straight from me as to what you must do and how you must act. Because it will be difficult for some of you to do what I’m saying. It strikes to a certain degree against what might be your first reaction, but you have to do this. Otherwise the consequences can be dire. So, this new law that New Jersey passed, and it is officially law. It takes accidents and makes them felonies, accidents with firearms, into felony level offenses. And we’re going to take a look at how exactly that gets done. How the Legislature, in passing this law, has done it in such a bizarre way, or sneaky way, devious way, that the impact and reality of it is how I’m going to explain it. Evan Nappen 07:13 So, the law reads, and you can read the bill that passed. It was A4976 and was approved by Murphy as one of his parting gifts on January 20 of this year. (https://pub.njleg.state.nj.us/Bills/2024/A5000/4976_R2.PDF) It says, (1.a.) For the purposes of this act, “Recklessly” shall have the same meaning as set forth in N.J.S. 2C:2-2. Now, 2-2 is where the culpability standards for New Jersey law are laid out. Culpability is the establishment of the level of what has to be demonstrated in order to prove whether you’re culpable for the commission of that offense. These fall under the general requirements of culpability, and normally, culpability has to be proven. It’s a level of proof. Often we think of culpability as needing to show purpose fully. You do something purposefully. We do something knowingly, knowingly. But recklessly and negligently can also be culpability levels in criminal law, and New Jersey is now making “Reckless” as part of this law. Page – 3 – of 14 Evan Nappen 08:56 But reckless isn’t necessarily how you might generically think of it. It’s defined in this culpability statute as follows. So, this is where “Reckless” gets defined that they’re incorporating into the new law. (N.J.S. 2C:2-2.(3)) “Recklessly. A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actor’s conduct and the circumstances known to him, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation. ‘Recklessness,’ or ‘with recklessness’, or equivalent terms have the same meaning.” Evan Nappen 10:05 Now, if you’re having trouble wrapping your head around what I just said, we’re going to get back to it. But I wanted to give you that, initially, as we go through the bill, and I’m going to show you how it translates into reality under the felony Dingus law. So, New Jersey now says “reckless” is defined as what I just told you, and then they define structure. “‘Structure’ means any building, room, ship, vessel, car, vehicle, or airplane, and also means any place adapted for overnight accommodation of persons or for carrying of business therein.” So, any business establishment, any means of transport, and any room, building or ship is a structure, okay? Now the law says a person commits, oh, a disorderly person’s offense. Oh, well, that’s not a felony, Evan. That’s a disorderly person. It’s New Jersey’s version of misdemeanor. Yeah, I know that, but let’s keep reading. Evan Nappen 11:21 Okay, folks. “A person commits a disorderly persons offense by recklessly discharging a firearm . . .” Well, you might think, why I’d never be reckless. I’d never be reckless. “. . . by recklessly discharging a firearm using live ammunition rounds . . .” So, I guess you can recklessly discharge a blank gun, but whatever. “. . . recklessly discharging a firearm using live ammunition rounds unlawfully or without a lawful purpose, except that a second conviction for such an offense constitutes a crime of the fourth degree, and a third or subsequent conviction for such an offense constitutes crime of the third degree.” So, what happens is this. It ups the degree if you have repeat offenses. Evan Nappen 12:12 So, you say, well, look, man, if I have one problem, at least it’s just a misdemeanor, and it’s not a felony. I don’t become a felony Dingus problem in my life. Well, yeah, because here’s the next part. It says, a person who commits a violation of what I just said, subsection b., technically of this section, shall be charged with a crime of one degree higher than what ordinarily would be charged for such offense, where the violation occurs within 100 yards of an occupied structure. Whoa, whoa. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. So, in other words, if you have an accidental discharge, and that AD was done without lawful purpose, well, if it’s an accidental discharge, what was your lawful purpose for having an accident? Of course, there wasn’t one. It’s baked into the cake. There’s no accident done lost with a lawful purpose. Of course not. So, every accident now, unless you can show there was a lawful purpose to your accident, okay? Every accident done, every accidental discharge without a lawful purpose, within 100 y

  Episode 275-Pretti’s Law  Also Available On Searchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode 275 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Second Amendment, Minnesota protest, Firearm Policy Coalition, natural rights, government officials, political opportunity, federal law, carry rights, red flag laws, gun rights, law enforcement, public carry, constitutional rights, gun policy, political reaction. SPEAKERS Speaker 2, Speaker 1, Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen 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. So, we’ve been following the events in Minnesota, and I’m sure you have as well. And, you know, this is troubling. It’s created quite an interesting political situation, and it’s kind of strange to see sides shifting. Yet, it appears that this may, in fact, be a political opportunity to help the Second Amendment get strengthened. Let me tell you where I’m going with this. Take a look here at the Firearm Policy Coalition’s recent statement. (https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-statement-rights-are-not-privileges) I don’t know if you’re familiar with the FPC, but they do a lot of great work in litigating through the court system, Second Amendment challenges. As a national group, they do good work, and they put out a statement that I thought was very interesting. It’ll lay the groundwork as we get a little bit more into depth about where I see some potential here that should be taken, frankly, advantage of in this interesting moment in time. Evan Nappen 01:50 So, what the FPC wrote in their statement is this. “Recent events in Minnesota underscore a recurring and deeply troubling theme: Government officials and commentators treating natural rights as privileges.” Now that’s an important statement right there about treating rights as privileges. As they mentioned in the article, the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth, is merely codification of pre-existing rights. They don’t create the rights. The Supreme Court has long recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. The Constitution simply is a guarantee of those rights and puts limits on Government, not the people. That’s why, if someone ever asked you, what rights are you given by the Constitution? The answer is none! Because those rights pre-exist the Constitution. The Constitution is there as a guarantor, guaranteeing those rights against the Government. And it puts limits on the Government to ensure that our rights stay respected. It doesn’t grant us rights. Only God granted us our rights, or natural law has granted those rights. Fundamental, fundamental natural laws. That’s what we’re talking about when it comes to actual rights. Page – 2 – of 9 Evan Nappen 03:18 So, this gets distorted politically by politicians who apparently seem to forget that. And here we end up in Minnesota, where this individual, (Alex) Pretti, came to this protest with a gun. The FPC points out that the mere presence of a firearm does not erase a person’s rights. It doesn’t turn lawful conduct into wrongdoing. It does not make someone fair game to be arrested or killed for the Government’s convenience. The Government does not get to flip the legal or moral burden. The fact that one is armed is not a license for the Government to shoot you! Nor is a right to bear arms a license for any person to use unjust force. And that is very strong and very true. This is where this situation now where Pretti ended up getting shot and killed by ICE for essentially bringing his gun to the protest. There’s a lot of dispute now over whether he used it, drew it, or whether he’s being disarmed, whether there was, I mean, there. All that’s out there. Evan Nappen 04:43 But my point isn’t whether Pretti, as a matter of fact, I don’t even support Pretti’s political view here. I’m all for ICE. I’m not. I don’t want to see our country with illegal immigrants but that’s my view. That’s my opinion. Okay, that’s fine. And Pretti had his opinion. He has a First Amendment right, and he has a Second Amendment right. The problem is reaction to the exercise of his Second Amendment right. When you take a look at what happened here, it’s somewhat disturbing that those folks that are supposed to be understanding what the Second Amendment means take an anti-Second Amendment group’s view. So, Politico had an article. It’s “Gun Rights groups blast Trump over Minnesota response”. (https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/27/gun-rights-groups-blast-trump-over-minnesota-response-00748217) And in fact, they did. Evan Nappen 05:47 Let me show you what has happened, where the tables and the issue has turned here. It’s very interesting, because I think it presents an opportunity that we’ll get to in a moment. So, for example, this is right from the Politico article. “FBI Director Kash Patel said Sunday on Fox News. ‘You cannot bring a firearm, loaded, with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want. It’s that simple. You don’t have a right to break the law.’ DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said Saturday that she didn’t ‘know of any peaceful protester that shows up with a gun and ammunition rather than a sign.’ White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Monday that ‘any gun owner knows’ that carrying a gun raises ‘the assumption of risk and the risk of force being used against you,’ during interactions with law enforcement.” I mean, come on. What the hell is with these people there? They are feeding into the Second Amendment oppressionists with this, with this stuff. Evan Nappen 07:05 So, gun rights groups pushed back, and a number of them were particularly enraged by Bill Essayli. He’s the acting U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California, who posted, “If you approach law enforcement with a gun, there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you.” What the “f” is he saying? Are you kidding me? If you approach law enforcement with a gun, there’s a high likelihood that they’ll be “legally justified in shooting you”. The NRA, okay? The NRA said that Essayli’s remarks were “dangerous and wrong” and called for a full investigation, instead of “making generalizations and demonizing law-abiding citizens”. That’s the NRA folks saying that now to this Page – 3 – of 9 character. Aidan Johnston, the Director of federal affairs for Gun Owners of America, called Essayli’s remarks, “absolutely unacceptable”. That’s GOA. I mean, listen this quote from Johnston. “Federal prosecutors should know better than to comment on a situation when he didn’t know all the facts, to make a judgment in a case like this, and then also, just to make a blanket statement, threatening gun owners in that way.” And Johnston is absolutely right. It’s outrageous. And yet, yeah, Teddy. Teddy Nappen 08:48 I will say, just taking a step back and looking at what they’ve kind of just put out of their reaction. You brought a gun and all the other and there’s stupid comments. What they could have said, which would have been a very easy play, is the Second Amendment isn’t your right to attack law enforcement officers. All right.? It has nothing to do with the carry. It had to do with the fact that it is agitators obstructing and attacking ICE. That would have been the very easy statement, but no. Evan Nappen 09:21 They focused just on the action and not the carry. But instead they focus on, oh, you come up to a law officer with a gun, they’re legally justified at shooting you. No, they’re not. They’re not. Unless you’re going to use it wrongly. Okay, we can all. And then the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus chair Bryan Strawser, he said, “We can all see what is on the video” what happened, and he’s not on the side of what the Trump administration is putting out. As a matter of fact, it says, an analysis done by the Washington Post that federal agents appear to have secured Pretti’s gun moments before an agent shot him. Teddy Nappen 10:18 So, just to break it down, a little more from that which they’re ignoring. I love the mainstream media loves to ignore. They take away the first 30 seconds where it’s him getting into it with the officers, where they’re blocking traffic, where he’d been doing that all day, and the woman was also blocking traffic. The officer shoves her out of the way because they’re blocking traffic, obstruction, you know, a crime. And then he tries to be the white knight and gets in it with the officer. They’re trying to pin him down to arrest him. He’s still fighting. He’s still fighting. One of the guys sees a gun and yells, gun. He pulls the gun away. And during it’s like, I didn’t know the timing of that. It’s like only a second or so split, and you hear them shout, gun. And the guy draws his pistol and he fires, because it’s a split second. I think there is a Supreme Court case where you have to look at it from the officer’s perspective, from there. Evan Nappen 11:13 And I can understand that. But what is disturbing is the key administration officials focusing on guns and gun owners and carry, instead of on the behavior of this person, which, arguably, is the real issue, and is what is the problem. Not having the gun. And then you combine that with, for example, Gavin Newsom, who, let’s face it, you know, he’s a Second Amendment oppressionist, right? I mean, he is. But what does he say? He says, “The Trump administration does not believe in the 2nd Amendment. Good to know.” So, okay, granted, he’s an opportunist here. But he’s actually seeing, even though we don’t believe he’s sincere, of course, but who knows? He’s seeing what’s wrong with what

  Episode 274- State Police RPO Cover-Up  Also Available On Searchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Gun Lawyer Transcript – Episode 274 SPEAKERS Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen, Speaker 2 Evan Nappen 00:17 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:19 and I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:21 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, our good friend, John Petrolino, who writes about many, many important topics, particularly as well concerning New Jersey, has an article that was in Bearing Arms. And I want to talk about what he’s raised here. The article’s title is “New Jersey State Police Tight Lipped Over Retired Police Permits”. (https://bearingarms.com/john-petrolino/2026/01/21/new-jersey-statepolice-tight-lipped-over-retired-police-permits-n1231288) So, what John has done is he’s used the New Jersey form of OPRA (Open Public Records Act), the Freedom of Information Act, asking the authorities in New Jersey for the number of permits issued to retired police officers. Evan Nappen 01:15 You may recall the then Attorney General Platkin did put up that dashboard and released the data of public statistics regarding carry permits, the number of permits issued. There’s been over 92,000 approved applications for carry permits in New Jersey, and of those approvals, 64,000 are non-expired permits. Now it’s interesting that the State puts out that data, but they don’t put out the data as to the RPO permits. The Retired Police Officer permits, and we want to find out how many folks carry that are not law enforcement, right? That are civilian. And let’s face it, Retired Police Officers are still civilians, even though they were formerly law enforcement. Originally carry was outside of being law enforcement and outside of New Jersey’s insane carry permit system back then, where you had to show “justifiable need”, which, as you may recall, meant showing of urgent necessity. This meant showing that a gun was necessary for you to defend yourself from death or serious bodily injury and that carrying a handgun was the only means that could do it. I mean, it was a standard that was so extreme that basically, if you’ve been shot and killed, you then qualified for a New Jersey carry permit. Evan Nappen 03:08 Now that went away thanks to the Bruen decision, and New Jersey jumped from less than 600 carry permits to now 64,000 valid permits and 92,000 valid, approved permits. But it does not include the RPOs. Now, RPOs had the ability to carry before Bruen, and during that time period when regular old civilians who weren’t retired law enforcement could not defend themselves with a firearm and carry in that manner, right? They were deemed to have to be victims instead of defenders. But now, for some reason, the State Police and such will not release the number of RPO permits. We’re not asking for names. John went forward here, and he didn’t ask for names. He didn’t ask for anything. He just wants to know how many? How many of the RPO permits are out there as well. This should be looked at in the aggregate with all the other carry permits that are out there, and yet that doesn’t happen. Page of 1 8 Evan Nappen 04:25 In December of 2025, John sent a request for the number of RPO permits, and it was denied. And the request was denied weirdly and strangely for reasons that just don’t make any sense. And I’m going to tell you. It makes you wonder, why is there a cover up? The reason they denied it, the reason the State Police have put in writing for the denial. Well, get a load of this. “Improper and Overbroad” was the main reason. Can you believe that the information is supposedly improper and overbroad? Why would wanting to know a statistical fact such as the number of RBO permits be considered overbroad? And why would it be considered in any way improper? It is strictly information. It is based on a record. It absolutely should be released. Evan Nappen 05:52 How come they are releasing the numbers for civilian carry permits, right? The 92,000. How come that’s not “improper and overbroad”? No, the Attorney General does it. Go ahead. Why? Tell me. Why do you think? Teddy Nappen 06:10 So, going back to because John also, if I recall, broke the story about denials where, what was it? Blacks were five times more likely to be denied to their carry. Evan Nappen 06:22 Yes, institutionalized racism. That exists in New Jersey. Teddy Nappen 06:31 So, add into the fact that you have the, well, here’s the trick. The Left have always been anti-police. That is a fact. They were the ones that wanted to defund the police. They were the ones for that. So, now we have the first factor of showing the absolute racism of the gun laws. But also the fact that they were supporting the only carry which, by the way, how much you want to bet they were all for the RPOs under all the Democrat Governors who allowed those carries to come into play. How much of that look, if it shows that there’s this massive amount of RPOs being issued. And because the Left are Marxists who absolutely hate police and hate law and order, this would make them look like absolute elitists and hypocrites. Evan Nappen 07:19 So, the fear is that, arguably, in the defund the police mentality, that if retired police are being armed, they don’t want any police armed, even if they’re retired, because of the perceived threat that they put out there that law enforcement creates toward minorities. In their view, not in my view. Not in my view. It’s the opposite. I mean, the fact is, they’re out there as protectors, defenders of the good people of our State. Every retired officer is somebody who’s not only armed, but also is experienced in armed defense, having served as a law enforcement officer. They’re a resource. They’re a positive benefit to our society. Yet, they’re probably scared of the politics. I mean, why else? What? There’s nothing about it that makes it “improper”. And it sure isn’t “overbroad”. It would be overbroad, maybe, if you want to know the name and address and Dox every carry RPO that’s out there. That’s not being requested. We just want the damn number. How many RPO carry permits? Teddy Nappen 08:41 Page of 2 8 It honestly reminds me, Dad, of that poster you had hung up. It was the joke where it shows if the Left could rewrite the Second Amendment. And I think, and I remember, you remember that. They crossed out, remember, they crossed out militia. And it says, like, military and police, employed police only. We’re kind of that logic where like, well, they’re not in the service, so why should they be armed? Not because there’s massive doxing websites, and that’s why ICE has to have their mask on for that exact reason. But. Evan Nappen 09:17 Exactly. Well, the fight is still ongoing and the question is raised. Why not just give us the number so we all know? And I would like to see a huge number of RPOs. I hope there’s lots of them out there. The more trained law-abiding folks that have firearms, the safer we are. And retired police are perfect in that regard. That’s exactly what we want to see. So, whatever their basis is, it just creates more of a conspiracy, and it just politicizes it so unnecessarily. It’s ridiculous. Release the number. Let us know. Let’s join in showing how many armed folks are out there. Maybe that’s another reason. They’re afraid that if that number, you know is even more, now, more and more people are carrying and suddenly the BITS argument they love to make right? Blood In The Streets. BITS. There’ll be blood in the streets with civilian carry, you know. No, it didn’t happen. And it’ll be the Wild West. It’s not the Wild West. And look at how many folks have carries when you combine the numbers. Maybe they’re afraid of that political aspect. But, you know, we have a right to know these numbers. It’s not a secret. It’s not improper. It’s not overbroad. Just let us know, and we deal with the facts. Evan Nappen 10:47 I also want to bring a couple very interesting things out that I’ve recently learned about. An important one here is the old “Bang or Bong – You can’t have both”. Well, shortly, at least a greater degree, you may be able to have both because President Trump, through his administration, folks, keep that in mind. Through the Trump administration, they have proposed, through ATF, revision of their regulation concerning the interpretation of what a “user of drugs” as a disqualifier, what it means. You know, for almost 30 years, ATF has said they treat even a single incident, a single past admission of marijuana use, or a failed drug test, or one misdemeanor marijuana conviction as evidence of a person being an unlawful user. They have now put forward an administrative reg that when it becomes finalized, which should be happening within the next few months, it will make it so that those things no longer will be deeming a person “an unlawful user”. And this should be of great help. Evan Nappen 12:25 From an article in AmmoLand, written by Dean Weingarten, which is entitled “ATF Finally Admits: One-time Drug Use Isn’t Grounds to Strip Gun Rights.” (https://www.ammoland.com/2026/01/atf-finally-admitsone-time-drug-use-isnt-grounds-to-strip-gun-rights/) It makes it really interesting here regarding that. In 2025, NICS denied 9,163 firearm transfers under the “unlawful user” category, okay? So, in other words, denials, denials of over 9,000 transfers, more than half of those denials, more than half, were single-incident drug inferences. Well, under this rule, those will no longer be denials. That’s over what? Four thousand people that will not be denied their gun rights, just in that one year, no less. Of people being denied over this nonsense. And furthermore, in this article, ATF admitted that 8,893 cases, it declined to investigate,

  Episode 273-Warning: Critical Gun Law Alert  Also Available On Searchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode 273 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS New Jersey gun laws, accidental discharge, criminalization, reckless discharge, felony consequences, gun ownership rights, self-defense, insurance coverage, Second Amendment, gun safety, gun dealers, international disarmament, gun control, gun owner education, legal challenges. 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 00:20 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. Well, folks, the New Jersey legislature has done it again. They have passed some atrocious gun laws, and I need to make all of you aware of one, particularly, that is very much a threat. It is something that’s going to affect many, many gun owners, and it is not being talked about in the general media, of course, because of how they write these laws in such a sneaky, underhanded way. But this law is going to impact all of us, frankly. And the potential is there, under this law, to not only take away gun owners’ rights to have guns, but to turn us all into felons at any time, simply based on an accident. That’s right, an accident. Evan Nappen 01:31 Because what New Jersey legislature’s both houses have passed, and I expect, very shortly, the governor will sign, is Assembly Bill, 4976. (https://pub.njleg.gov/Bills/2024/A5000/4976_R2.PDF) And what this bill does is it criminalizes Accidental Discharges (ADs). Now, an accidental discharge is when your gun goes off, accidentally, either by what some folks call an uncommanded discharge or an accidental discharge. But it is something that can happen, and although we have to always be very careful, circumstances can be such that a mistake can be made. I mean, we’re all human, and mistakes can happen. And unfortunately, you know, I see it in the practice, and I get accidental discharge cases all the time where individuals make a mistake and a gun goes off unintended. It happens. Now sometimes it happens because of the actual mechanical flaws to a firearm and that can be because of a gun’s design. It can even be due to circumstances where a firearm can go off from the slightest touch. Evan Nappen 03:08 Now you may not be aware of this, but years and years ago, I know of a case where an individual had a shotgun that this fellow had kept loaded. One of those single shot, top-breaker type shotguns. You know, like the old kind of like the toppers, the H and R Toppers, and what have you, similar to that. It Page – 1 – of 11may even have been one. I don’t know. But it’s one of those old single shot shotguns. And for probably 50 years, that gun had remained loaded with a shell in it. At one point, there were folks that were causing all kinds of problems in this guy’s yard, and he wanted to scare them off. He didn’t want to shoot them, and he put the gun out of, pointed the gun out the window, and boom. It went off, and he never pulled the trigger. He absolutely never pulled the trigger. There was no hit to the primer of the shell when it went off. And what has happened was, in this particular design of the gun, the firing pin had been pushing against the primer because the hammer was down and it didn’t have a firing pin block. And for like 50 years, this gun sat there, sensitizing the primer so that the slightest touch, you know, just the right jolt, without having to actually pull the trigger, made it go off. So, a gun can actually even do that under those extraordinary circumstances. Evan Nappen 04:57 But normally, an accidental discharge or uncommanded discharge that we encounter is because somebody believed, honestly believed, their gun was unloaded. And it ends up, of course, that it wasn’t. Now this can happen because somebody thought they checked it and maybe even did check. But then, with a magazine in and the slide going forward, a round loads, but they didn’t realize that it loaded, because they checked that it was unloaded. And sure enough, there’s a round there. I mean, I’ve seen every combination of error that could happen and a discharge can occur. And, of course, we know the rules, always point in a safe direction, etc. Make sure your gun is unloaded. Double, triple check to make sure that the chamber is empty. That there’s no magazine, and there’s no live ammo. I mean, all those things that we do. But accidents can happen, just like in a motor vehicle. We drive as safe as we possibly can, but people still have accidents. And what New Jersey has done in this bill is essentially criminalize an accident so that individuals will be looking at what is, in all likelihood, felony level charges. And they structured this bill in just a sneaky, evil, devious way. It’s going to have great impact, and it’s going to create, I think, unintended consequences. Evan Nappen 06:40 Now, as gun owners, we have to understand how we have to behave if any of us ever are so unfortunate as to have an uncommanded or accidental discharge. So, the law talks about “recklessly” having a discharge. “Reckless” in criminal law means, you know, with a conscious disregard of a known risk, okay? Criminal laws can have recklessly or reckless as a standard, as opposed to something being intentional, right? So, if you intentionally meant to pull the trigger, that’s intentional. Reckless could still be you didn’t intend to do it. But if there was that conscious disregard of that known risk and it ended up discharged, then you could argue that it’s reckless. So, reckless is kind of a standard where it’s not that traditional mens rea, your mental and your mental state of having that intention to have the gun fire. Reckless has been in our criminal law for a long time, and reckless conduct is something that’s out there, like reckless driving. I’m sure that you have heard of that. Evan Nappen 08:05 But what they’re doing here is even more devious by using the word “reckless”. So, what now is being prohibited? And I’m going to read this to you so you can see how they’ve done this. It says, a person commits a disorderly person’s offense. Now that sounds like, okay. A disorderly persons offense in New Jersey is equivalent to a misdemeanor. It’s not a felony. So, you’re saying, well, first of all, this is not creating a felony. It’s creating a disorderly persons offense, right? It sounds like it’s, you know, Page – 2 – of 11apparently, trying to be reasonable. But trust me, folks, it isn’t. I’m going to show you why. “A person commits a disorderly persons offense by recklessly discharging a firearm.” Okay, so at this point they’re saying, well, it’s just a low level offense, and it’s for recklessly discharge. You know, we’ve conscientiously disregarded a known risk. Okay, so it started out sounding, you know, not great, but okay. It’s not. It shouldn’t affect a lot of folks, and luckily, if it does, it’s still a misdemeanor. And, of course, it requires that recklessness. So, that sounds all good. Evan Nappen 09:22 Let me start again and read you, but wait until you hear the rest of it. A person commits a disorderly persons offense by recklessly discharging a firearm “using live ammunition rounds”. Well, okay, that’s good to know. A blank gun isn’t a reckless discharge, but you know you’re firing a blank. No live ammo. Okay. So, if I’m firing dead ammo or ammo that’s not live, then that’s not a reckless discharge. Well, good. How do I get a discharge with ammo that’s not live? I don’t know how that’s even going to happen. But okay, they throw that in, probably more as subterfuge and, you know, smoke and mirrors. But again, here we go. “A person commits a disorderly persons offense by recklessly discharging a firearm using live ammunition rounds unlawfully . . .” Okay, unlawfully. So, you’re unlawful. “. . . or without a lawful purpose.” Whoops, wait a minute. “Without a lawful purpose.” You commit a disorderly persons offense by recklessly discharging a firearm without lawful purpose. Evan Nappen 10:35 Except that a second conviction for such an offense constitutes a crime of the fourth degree. Well, a crime is a felony, and that’s a fourth degree. It’s a year and a half in jail. And a third or subsequent conviction is a third degree and that’s five years in State Prison. Okay. So, you may even read this part and say, well, it’s still arguably, weirdly reckless, maybe. But it’s for discharging a firearm without lawful purpose, but at least it’s a disorderly persons offense. And I, boy, if we do it once, I sure wouldn’t think I’d do it again. So, why is this such a problem, you know. Evan Nappen 11:09 But oh, well, wait, wait, wait. We’re not done yet. Because then it says, if a person commits a violation under this section, you’re charged with a crime one degree higher than what ordinarily would be charged for such an offense when the violation occurs within 100 yards, 100 yards, folks. Not 100 feet. A football field’s worth of distance of an occupied structure. Oh, what’s an occupied structure? Any building, room, ship, vessel, car, vehicle, or airplane, or a place adopted for overnight accommodations of persons or for carrying on business therein. Wait a minute, wait a minute. Wait a minute! An occupied structure includes a car or vehicle, and it doesn’t even mean it has to be occupied. It means even a vehicle or a building or a room, and it has to be within 100 yards, a football field, of a car. If there’s a car driving by within 100 yards where the accidental discharge takes place. If you’re in your own home? I mean, this is basically every

  Episode 272- Jersey Spreads the Oppression  Also Available On Searchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Second Amendment rights, New Jersey gun laws, national firearm licensing, anti-gun oppression, domestic violence restraining order, federal firearms licensing act, gun control measures, gun rights suppression, gun violence prevention, gun rights advocacy, gun rights litigation, gun rights education, gun rights resources, gun rights history, gun rights updates. SPEAKERS Speaker 2, Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen Evan Nappen 00:15 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:17 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:20 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, New Jersey is spreading the oppression. New Jersey is like a cancer when it comes to Second Amendment rights, and it has to metastasize. This is really one of the primary reasons that Gun Lawyer, our show here, has reach that is further than just New Jersey, even though we focus a lot on New Jersey. But New Jersey is where we see the experimenting done at the cost of our rights, where we see the oppression in full force and effect. And we see their newest machinations coming from the Left wing, anti-Second Amendment, anti-American, think tanks getting their origins in New Jersey. Then spreading and then spreading, with an attempt to spread it to all of America. Evan Nappen 01:26 So, of course, we have New Jersey senators, strictly New Jersey senators here, that are now pushing a national gun licensing scheme, which is national Second Amendment rights oppression, to force the entire country into the agenda of disarmament via New Jersey style. And it is why you have to, we have to, keep the fight up here in New Jersey, which is the front line of the battle. We need to get our politics here changed, because the cancer has to stop. Evan Nappen 02:13 And here’s what they’re proposing right now. Granted, it’s not likely to pass in the current climate right now with Republicans in control, barely, but in control of both houses, and with President Trump at the helm. But it is something that tells you where the Democrats will go should they ever regain power again, and this is showing you just how far they will go to oppress our Second Amendment rights. I mean, it’s apparently not bad enough that the Democrats are so-called Democrat socialists, you know, communist light. But even just in terms of the Constitution that they are supposedly sworn to uphold, it is demonstrated as to be a false oath by them over and over again. Page – 1 – of 13 Evan Nappen 03:14 So, here is the current push, and by the way, this is from an article from Bearing Arms, and it’s by Tommy Knighton. It says, “NJ’s Senators Push National Gun Licensing Bill”. (https://bearingarms.com/tomknighton/2026/01/04/njs-senators-push-national-gun-licensing-bill- n1231085) So, who are the culprits here? Who are those oppressors out of New Jersey? Well, of course, it’s Senator (Corey) Booker and Senator (Andy) Kim. They’ve introduced this legislation, and they’re calling it the Federal Firearm Licensing Act (FFLA). Now, don’t confuse the title. Teddy Nappen 03:43 Doesn’t Cory Booker ever stop talking. Evan Nappen 03:46 Yeah. Don’t confuse this Federal Firearms Licensing Act with the way we traditionally think of an FFL as being a dealer. No, no, no. What they’re doing here, and maybe it’s part of their attempt to fool the public, I don’t know. But it would mandate that every American obtain a Federal Firearms License before purchasing or receiving any firearm. So, if you want to purchase or receive a firearm in America, you’re going to have to get an FFL. Now, this obviously isn’t a dealer FFL. It’s just a private person wanting to exercise Second Amendment rights FFL. This is apparently one of the most comprehensive federal gun control measures, what I prefer to call Second Amendment oppression measures, requiring and establishing a nationwide licensing system. Putting numerous new requirements on every American. Evan Nappen 04:59 Under this proposed legislation, you would need to complete a mandatory firearms training safety that includes both written and hands-on instruction before qualifying for a license. And this is a license just to obtain a firearm. This isn’t to carry a firearm. The Attorney General will then conduct background checks on every applicant, and the FBI would perform regular compliance checks to monitor license holders. So, you’re going to be constantly monitored by the FBI, as well as having to go through this. Each license will expire after five years, requiring gun owners to renew their permission to purchase firearms. And, of course, if the license expires and you don’t renew it, you’re losing your guns and your gun rights. And this is what the oppressionists, what New Jersey’s senators, are putting forward to try to create a national firearm licensing scheme. Of course, it has the end game of utter confiscation and to turn us into, you know, the U.K. basically. Evan Nappen 06:19 The bill will fundamentally alter how Americans can buy and sell firearms privately. Unlicensed individuals could no longer transfer to other unlicensed individuals. Instead, all transactions have to go through dealers, and selling or transferring a firearm without a Federal license issued within the previous 30 days would be illegal. Sellers are mandated to report transactions to law enforcement, etc. So, you can see this is just scratching the surface of this so-called Federal Firearms Licensing Act. It’s designed for the furtherance of their agenda. And this agenda we see come alive in New Jersey. How New Jersey citizens are turned into criminals. Law-abiding citizens turned into criminals by New Jersey Page – 2 – of 13 gun law. I deal with that every day, defending my clients who Jersey has made into law-abiding criminals. And this is something that they want to spread to the entire United States. So, beware. Evan Nappen 07:35 And keep in mind the history of gun rights oppression, beginning with New Jersey, and spreading to the entire U.S. is documented through a number of laws. For example, New Jersey first had the domestic violence misdemeanor and/or restraining order gun ban. New Jersey had it as a state law first, where if you had a domestic violence restraining order, or what New Jersey calls a disorderly person. We can view it as a misdemeanor offense. Concerning domestic violence, then you became a prohibited person to have a firearm. That was not a national law. That was state law. New Jersey was one of the originators of that law. Evan Nappen 08:22 And, of course, it was something that radically departed from what were traditionally prohibited persons. It had to be felons, convicted felons, and originally, it was violent felons, but at least you had to have a felony conviction. But now what you saw was misdemeanant, misdemeanant, a misdemeanant, suddenly having a gun disqualifier. And even less than being a misdemeanant, somebody with a civil restraining order became forfeit, disenfranchised of their Second Amendment rights. And New Jersey did it first to its own people. Then Senator, the corpse, Lautenberg, as you may recall, put it forward federally, and it became federal law by a New Jersey Senator. Creating new disqualifiers for domestic violence restraining order and/or domestic violence misdemeanor. Thereby, retroactively, by the way, because there’s no ex post facto when it comes to a civil disqualifier. Retroactively disqualifying hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people that were lawful gun owners into being unlawful gun owners. And lowering the bar for a loss of Second Amendment rights. Evan Nappen 10:01 This has impacted thousands of people in their gun rights, criminal prosecutions, et cetera. And, of course, no piece of paper ever actually really protected somebody. I mean, that’s a joke. You know, these restraining orders are feel good more than anything. I mean, good luck. I mean, we’ve seen case after case where, yeah, the person had a restraining order, and they still became victimized by the person who was restrained. And even taking away guns from the person who has the restraining order. Yeah, oh, there’s no way that they might get another gun, right? So, that thousands of people get their guns seized. Teddy Nappen 10:49 Or, the classic. He threw pretzels at me! Evan Nappen 10:52 Right! Oh, God. Teddy Nappen 10:53 Or where you get accused of something that isn’t true, that they make stuff up and there’s clear falsification. And then. Page – 3 – of 13 Evan Nappen 11:00 Teddy, you’re so right. As soon as that TRO, Temporary Restraining Order, issues based on the flimsiest of allegations, with you having no say whatsoever. And, you know, it’s harder to get a sandwich at Wawa, than to get a TRO issued against somebody. You now have to go to court. Your guns are going to be seized pursuant to that TRO, and you’re going to have a fight, not only on the allegations, but also on trying to regain your rights. And it’s just a nightmare that can be triggered on the flimsiest of allegations. We see it all the time. And oh, well, that’s not politically correct. Well, it doesn’t matter, folks. I don’t do this show so I can maintain political correctness. Evan Nappen 11:46 I’m telling you what I see as a practicing attorney all the time in this area. I see the abuse, abuse of rights, okay? I see this system being abused against individuals. None of this means that I’m in favor of someone being domestically abused, being violently abused in any capacity. I don’t want to see anybody abused. But that doesn’t mean that we do not talk about the actual effect that we see happen over and over and over again when it comes to the Lautenberg law that started with New Jersey an