Page – 1 – of 12

Gun Lawyer — Episode 310 Transcript

SUMMARY KEYWORDS

Second Amendment, SCOTUS, gun laws, case law, firearm cases, felon possession, machine guns, sensitive places, age restrictions, licensing reciprocity, domestic violence, short barrels, free speech, due process, gun deserts

SPEAKERS

Speaker 3, Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen

Evan Nappen 00:18

I’m Evan Nappen.

Teddy Nappen 00:20

And I’m Teddy Nappen.

Evan Nappen 00:22

Yes, you are. And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, this is very exciting because I’ve been involved, basically dedicated my entire life and career to Second Amendment, and proud of it. I’ve loved and still do love fighting for our rights and helping good people. And when I see the following, it is very, very exciting because the turnaround is just amazing. SCOTUS, which is our anacronym for the Supreme Court of the United States, SCOTUS, currently has, as we speak right now, 57 firearm-related cases. Now that doesn’t mean they’re going to hear all 57 cases, but it’s very encouraging.

Evan Nappen 01:29

They have 57 gun cases that are getting conferenced by the United States Supreme Court, in which they may take who knows how many, if any, but they may take that will again put the Second Amendment to the forefront and create more case law that we get to use in further challenges and seeing the death of various gun laws. Now remember, the Supreme Court has accepted already Viramontes and Grant, and that is the assault fireman. You know, and maybe magazines. It seems like they might also be considering mags, maybe, maybe not, as part of that. That remains to be seen. But it’s definitely the assault, so-called assault weapon, assault firearm ban that the Supreme Court is going to see whether it is in fact a violation of the Second Amendment or not. That’s going to most likely we’ll see that decision itself in June (2027).

Evan Nappen 02:40

But what we have right now are 57 cases where the Supreme Court is conferencing them. When the Supreme Court conferences cases, it’s where the judges discuss the cases and decide whether or not to grant certiorari, in other words, whether or not to grant the hearing on their appeal to the Supreme Court. If the vote gets four of the judges to say, “Yeah, we want to consider this case”, that means there will be a formal Supreme Court appeal that takes place on that case, where briefs will be done and a Page – 2 – of 12

written Supreme Court opinion will come from it, and that will create more Supreme Court case law, which will apply to the entire United States. So this is why it’s so exciting because there’s 57 Firearm cases, and I’ve taken this, by the way, from an article from Bearing Arms, which is titled “SCOTUS Has Plate Full With Gun-Related Cases for Conference”, and it’s by Tom Knighton. (https://bearingarms.com/tomknighton/2026/09/28/scotus-has-plate-full-with-gun-related-cases-for-conference-n1233951?fbclid=IwY2xjawUoGBNleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBwZG9mA3NydGMGYXBwX2lkDzQwOTk2MjYyMzA4NTYwOQABHhaeKYFggEs5knGWTHaq7j9dad_ILCqEs6y-KXBm7XBe9xpW7PJed09DlZ6u_aem_FvBLjsHNAHM3unLAGvxz9Q)

Evan Nappen 03:54

And listen to what these cases are that they may or may not take. It’s exciting. Thirty-nine of the cases are challenging the felon in possession ban, or the state equivalent of felons possessing guns. Three of the cases regarding the constitutional protection of machine guns. That’s interesting. Three going at the federal law banning possession by unlawful drug users. One of them going at the federal ban on possession of firearms by aliens lawfully present in the United States. So, they’re talking about legal, not illegal, aliens in the U.S. and their ability to possess. There’s one that goes at Washington State’s civil protection order statute, which is, I guess, similar to, you know, the domestic violence restraining order type. There’s a challenge to Maryland’s sensitive place restrictions. So, we got a sensitive place restriction case that possibly the Supreme Court will take, which could be very helpful to us in New Jersey.

Evan Nappen 05:12

An age restriction case regarding 18 to 20 year olds being denied their constitutional rights. A commerce clause challenge to 922(g)(1). So, they’re claiming how the federal law on the regulation of firearms violates commerce. There’s one to a shall issue licensing regimes. I thought most of these shall issues were dead, particularly after Bruen. But we probably have some rogue state trying something. Here’s a really, really good one. Boy, I’d love for them to take this one, too. Interstate licensing reciprocity. Maybe we can get national reciprocity accomplished judicially if we can get the Supreme Court to take this case and decide that one permit is valid everywhere in the U.S. or something else along those lines, and why.

Teddy Nappen 06:15

Would that also, I don’t know, if that goes even further. Where, say, for example, go to a different state and wanting to buy a gun, you don’t have to transfer it to a dealer instead.

Evan Nappen 06:24

Well, that’s different. This is about licensing.

Evan Nappen 06:27

Why they would explore that. Well, maybe, maybe, maybe. Depending on what they’re, how they’re viewing licensing as permitting. I think they mean by carrying. Page – 3 – of 12 Page – 4 – of 12

Teddy Nappen 06:35

Like this basic example. New Jersey has their like FPIC. If another state recognizes that, would that be a way? That would I guess that would be kind of a way. Well we have a

Evan Nappen 06:43

Well, we have it to a certain degree. You can buy out-of-state, just not handguns. The Fifth Circuit, I believe it was, recently said that’s unconstitutional. So, we should be able to buy guns since it’s a constitutional right anywhere in the U. S. Why are you restricted where you can only buy your handgun in your resident state? There’s no reason for that, so that’s being challenged. It was successfully challenged in the Fifth Circuit. We’re probably going to see that make its way up to SCOTUS. Then there’s another case on banning possession, the ban on possession by anyone who has a domestic violence misdemeanor. Remember, originally misdemeanors were never disqualifiers for guns. But because of the political correctness surrounding domestic violence, they get a special status of being a disqualifier. So, if you’re convicted, for example, of committing simple assault on your spouse, even at a misdemeanor level, then you’re barred from owning firearms anywhere in the United States. But if you go around beating up complete strangers all day long and get conviction after conviction for simple assault, but it’s not domestic violence, you’re not a prohibited person, okay? So that.

Teddy Nappen 07:52

And also that’s the equivalent of “he threw pretzels at me”. So, that it can be just yeah.

Evan Nappen 08:08

And we’ve had it just so extreme. There’s another one challenging the federal ban on short barrel shotguns. You know all the NFA stuff is making its way up to the court. One on military courts’ ability to impose firearm restrictions as part of court-martial sentencing. And then a challenge to New York’s prohibition on tasers and stun guns.

Evan Nappen 08:35

As far as that goes, this is a heck of a pile. It’s really great to see the massive amount of litigation that is now taking place to try to free our Second Amendment rights from the chains that they’ve been bound by for all these years by these oppressive laws. One of the key cases here, yeah, well, one of them that I think might be really important, just so you know, is the short barrel shotgun case, which are considering whether they’re arms under the Second Amendment. That may be very important because remember we had the Big Beautiful Bill, which led to the Big Beautiful Lawsuit, but that’s just going at the jurisdiction of taxation. If we get a case that finally declares them to actually just be flat out protected under the Second Amendment, then that will kill it dead permanently.

Teddy Nappen 09:36

I remember, Dad, weren’t you in that whole fight with Stryker? You were there to help fight against that at the time, if I recall.

Evan Nappen 09:43

Yeah, the Striker 12. New Jersey made it an assault firearm, and the federal government then made it NFA as a destructive device. We tried to fight and challenge it, and that was when the 1994 Crime Bill, I Page – 5 – of 12

like to. The 1994 bill that was a crime had the assault weapon federal law in it. It included the strikers. So as a preemptive publicity stunt, the ATF declared that so-called Striker 12s and street sweepers-they weren’t shotguns; they are destructive devices, and you had to register them NFA. Now you could do it at no charge, but this was really an abuse. And yet, to this day, the Stryker 12 still falls in this category of DD. Not even short barrel rifle or any of that, a short barrel shotgun, but actually destructive device. So, it may, though, ultimately prove to be the undoing of even the destructive device federal statute.

Evan Nappen 10:55

Really, all the Stryker 12 is and a street sweeper is a 12-gauge shotgun that feeds from a drum, and yet even though the drum-fed Stryker 12 street sweeper, which is a fixed magazine, it’s a fixed revolving drum. You don’t remove it. You have to very much similar to a single action army Colt, like the old cowboy revolver. You got to pop out each shell and reload a new shell into that drum, right? Yet you can get a semi-automatic shotgun that is magazine-fed that uses drums that hold more rounds than even the Stryker 12, and it’s a detachable magazine, and they’re just shotguns, which is fine. That’s exactly what they should be, but tell me why the slower to load 12 gauge drum-fed 12-shot magazine shotgun is a destructive device, but the semi-automatic shotgun that uses detachable drum magazines and fires faster and fires semi-automatically, which the Stryker 12 is mechanical, like a revolver that has a spring behind it that helps turn the drum. That those semi-autos are fine, those drum magazines are fine, but somehow the Striker and the Street Sweeper are destructive devices falling under the NFA. Again, it makes absolutely no sense, and we see that quite often when it comes to what’s declared in vain.

Teddy Nappen 12:47

I think you saw the photo, Dad, where they had the one Stryker that had like was it a huge, like it was a 12 inch. It was a huge barrel, like.

Evan Nappen 12:55

Yeah. So, they had done up a trap shooting version that we took to the Grand American and shot trap with, and the last version of the Striker 12 was really quite cool. It could, you could. It had a button. You could have the cylinder roll past one chamber and go to another. So, you could have what they call a Dutch load, where you could have maybe slugs or buckshot or whatever, and then you could push the button and you could immediately change to the load you want to use. That’s kind of cool. And then the later model did self-eject, very ingenious. After you fired it, the next shot would use gas pressure to at least expel the other shell. You still have to manually put the reload in, but it would expel automatically. hey were very cool, and they were very strong. They were, the Stryker 12s were military-spec shotguns. The Street Sweepers were, well, let’s put it this way: not military spec, okay? hey even warned you with the Street Sweepers to just use low brass. How’s that? Just use low brass. I guess they weren’t real confident in anyone using high brass. But on the Striker 12s, they were strong. They could handle anything, and they were extremely well built. But anyway, fun with NFA.

Evan Nappen 14:31

Hey, I also want to mention here about the challenge to New Jersey’s gun permits. While we’re talking about all these great cases that are proceeding in the SCOTUS federal court on challenges, there are Page – 6 – of 12

some challenges trying to take place, and I say trying, to the New Jersey Supreme Court. One of the important challenges to the New Jersey Supreme Court that we’re trying to get the court to move on. Recently, SAF, Second Amendment Foundation, has brought a challenge to New Jersey’s gun permit denial over protected speech. Now, this is an article from our good friend John Petrolino, out of Ammoland, another great aggregate news service on our gun rights. (https://www.ammoland.com/2026/09/new-jersey-gun-permit-denial-protected-speech/?utm_source=Ammoland+Subscribers&utm_campaign=b1b09229ed-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6f6fac3eaa-b1b09229ed-21268623)

Evan Nappen 15:17

f you go there, you’ll see the title is “SAF Challenges New Jersey Gun Permit Denial Over Protected Speech”. This is the case of A.A.R., which was decided in New Jersey and in the appellate division. This is where a person was exercising their First Amendment rights, freedom of speech, and they were saying things that some people wouldn’t like, but nothing dangerous. Not making threats. But things that, you know, you might take issue with over this person’s opinions. Such as remarks online that support white supremacy, misogyny, violence, rape fantasies, use of racial slurs, and more-all allegations, none of which, from all accounts, were criminal. So, apart from sounding like a Democrat, he was targeted and denied and upheld, but none of that has to do with really what is otherwise just free speech.

Evan Nappen 16:34

And you know whatever happened to the old that they the old expression that is often accredited to Voltaire, but I’m-I don’t think Voltaire actually said it, but it’s often accredited to him. It’s something along the lines of, I may disagree with what you’re saying, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it. You see, New Jersey doesn’t take that approach at all. They apply it to take away gun rights. And as John points out in his article, the court’s opinion in this A.A.R. case that is seeking New Jersey Supreme Court certification, so that the New Jersey Supreme Court will have to rule on it, that A.A.R. case, the appellate opinion, relied upon in upholding the constitutionality, the M.U. case.

Evan Nappen 17:28

Now, the M.U. case is my case, from my firm, and as John points out, we asked the New Jersey Supreme Court to hear M.U. over three years ago. The court still hasn’t decided yes or no to hear M.U. So, here you have the appellate division in New Jersey deciding against gun rights, relying upon an appellate decision that went against gun rights. All of this involving the abuse of Second Amendment being taken out by First Amendment restrictions, unlawful in our view, 100% restricting free speech. Yet we’ve been trying to get the Supreme Court to hear it for over three years, and now another case is trying to get the Supreme Court to hear it.

Evan Nappen 18:29

And yet, this newest case is even relying on the older case that the Supreme Court refuses to even say yes or no to hearing. This is the tactic in the judiciary to simply say, “Hey, we’re just not going to decide it. And as New Jersey continues to sit on M.U., it prevents us from going to the United States Supreme Court to ask the U.S. Supreme Court for relief because you have to exhaust your state remedies first. So, this is essentially a roadblock, and now it’s going to be a chain roadblock where M.U. for three Page – 7 – of 12

years is pending. Now A.A.R. is asking on essentially the same issue because of reliance on M.U. and A.A.R. When is the New Jersey Supreme Court going to get off its butt and say, “Hey, we’ll consider it, and then whatever they decide, fine. You want to go totally against it? Great. Now we’ll go to the U.S. Supreme Court to see if they think you’re right. Do you want to do what’s right and say, “Hey, we actually defend free speech, and whether we agree with it, whether it’s reprehensible, we’re going to carve out the boundaries here for what does create a genuine danger or threat.” Or what isn’t. And maybe that’s a test that’ll fly, and maybe even that wouldn’t fly. I don’t know, but just don’t be a roadblock like this. That’s wrong. That’s denial of due process to everybody. Make your decision one way or another. That’s not asking too much. That’s why we have a court system, but it’s not happening in New Jersey, folks. Hopefully, this case that SAF brought will help push us along.

Teddy Nappen 20:29

I don’t know if this would be a thing, but could they, for what the court is doing? I know there’s like the judicial ethics of basically stalling a case because not wanting it to go forward. I don’t even know if that would be even a thing. But could you?

Evan Nappen 20:43

Well, yeah, who are we going to complain to? Who? The Supreme Court that’s delaying it?

Teddy Nappen 20:49

That’s what I’m curious about. Okay, yeah, yeah, no, no, there must be like right. No, there’s no there’s no oversight beyond it.

Evan Nappen 20:57

The oversight is the legislature, which I’m sure is going to just be all completely mad and upset that that New Jersey is delaying due process on gun rights, right? Yeah. So, I mean, where are we going with it? This is the tactic that we’re currently going through here. So, hey, the Trump administration, Second Amendment.

Teddy Nappen 21:24

Yes.

Evan Nappen 21:24

What we can do about it, honestly, is what we’re doing about it right now. Shining the light of public attention. John Petrilino gets credit for his article, putting it out there. Gun Lawyer is here, telling listeners about it. I want every other outlet, media voice out there, because that is our recourse. It’s the public hearing about it, seeing it, and that kind of pressure can make a difference in our society, okay. So, this is why we’re talking about it, man. We need to see action. Like I said, I would love for them to go in our favor, but even if they don’t go in our favor, I’ll still accept that, and we can then take it further in the due process that our system affords. But not allowing that-that’s where it’s absolutely wrong. You’re denying due process. Page – 8 – of 12

Teddy Nappen 22:22

This is one of those times, again, where the I love these states people, states powers rights groups. They always go with that. Like, no. Here’s an exact thing of the abuse of power of the state, where they are literally keeping you in a holding pattern because they want to play politics. They know where the winds is blowing. Like this is disgusting.

Evan Nappen 22:42

A right delayed is a right denied, and we live that in New Jersey. Whether it’s licensing procedures, trying to get through the court system when you’ve been wrongfully denied, all these kind of things. It is fraught with abuse. But the day of reckoning is coming, folks, because we now have a federal Department of Justice Civil Rights Division under President Trump that is actually suing and holding, even to some degree, personally responsible the wrongdoers that have long abused Second Amendment rights. Our Second Amendment rights are the same as our First Amendment rights. It’s the same as our right to free speech and our right to religion, and the practice thereof. It’s in the same category of rights. It’s not a second-class right, the Second Amendment, and it cannot be treated that way. he DOJ is actively pursuing it in the way it should be, and that’s another possibility that New Jersey may be playing with fire on by playing these shenanigans on our rights.

Evan Nappen 23:57

Hey, I want to tell you the latest about our good friends at WeShoot, that is the range where literally Teddy and I, that’s where we shoot. We shoot at WeShoot, and you can shoot at WeShoot, too. And I would highly recommend it. That’s where Teddy and I got our certifications. We get our training. We’ll be taking courses there very shortly, and we’re looking forward to it. We love it there. Great range, great pro shop. Let me tell you about some cool stuff that We Shoot has going on this week. They have the Sig Sauer MPX K AOW, folks. It’s an AOW. It’s there. You can check it out at WeShoot. They have a Century Arms VSKA. It’s a U.S. Draco AOW. That’s right, another AOW, right there at WeShoot. They have Smith & Wesson Bodyguard 2.0 “Gold Nugget”. It’s a little bit of. A bling on the Smith bodyguard, and you can also check out Christina Fernacola. We have a nice photo shoot of Christina, and you’ll find her accessorized very nicely with a lot of great 2A materials, you will see her as a very classy, casual, sporty, or tactical, in which that freedom never goes out of style.

Evan Nappen 25:36

That’s one of the fun things about WeShoot. They have what’s called the many faces of 2A, and it’s important they are doing the community outreach and showing that the stereotype that the oppressionists of our rights always try to paint gun owners as is the furthest thing from the truth. WeShoot reaches into the various communities that want to exercise their Second Amendment rights that break the mold of the stereotype that the other side tries to present, I would highly recommend checking out WeShoot. Their membership sale is still on. You can save $100 to $250 off memberships. So, check out WeShoot and jump on the membership sale.

Evan Nappen 26:32

And let me give you one other little tidbit here that’s very interesting. If you’re familiar with the super high-end Phoenix Trinity, the Phoenix Trinity model. Well, guess what? They’re having a huge sale on the Phoenix Trinity with $2,000 off all models that they have in store. So, if you want a $2,000 savings Page – 9 – of 12

on a Phoenix Trinity, check out WeShoot. You can check out WeShoot online at weshootusa.com. Great website, beautiful photography, but make sure you go there. They’re so conveniently located right off of the Parkway in Lakewood, New Jersey, Central Jersey. They are a great resource and a lot of fun. Go to WeShoot today; you’ll be glad you did. Teddy, what do you have for us in Press Checks?

Teddy Nappen 27:39

Well, as you know, Press Checks are always free. From all the great victories and all the cases that are going through, the Left are already trying to move to the. They’ve already lost. They already know they’re losing the ground, so they have to roll back and move to the, where things are going. They’re trying to cut a stop at the pass, and right now we see the biggest push is shipping guns directly to your doorstep. That is the end all be all of the Left when it comes to. If you look at a lot of the victories, it’s common use, and I am of the opinion, and this is something I’ve stolen from the Left. I rip it off. They had the whole stupid “food deserts”, which is ridiculous because you can order food on Amazon.

Evan Nappen 28:04

What is a “food desert”?

Teddy Nappen 28:15

You can order food wherever and get it delivered. They try to argue, they try to argue about grocery stores being closed after they’re being robbed into oblivion.

Evan Nappen 28:35

They want the shoplifting thing and all that. All the shoplifting. As long as it’s under $1000, shoplifters is no big thing.

Teddy Nappen 28:41

Correct. Correct. So, then they leave those areas. Then the groups, the Left, accuse them of being racist, of leaving areas that have minority populated, and it is basically robbed out of oblivion. So, they call it “food deserts, even though you can order almost everything online. You can order freaking caviar on Amazon. Like you can get any food whatsoever.

Evan Nappen 29:05

But you have to be literate and have internet and a computer. I know you got. I know. Well, maybe you get the free phone, right? So, I guess with the free phone, you could do it. Well, it’s yeah, I know credit card.

Teddy Nappen 29:18

Yeah, cut to Kathy Hochul who tried to argue, saying, “Oh, we gotta allow these computers because they don’t know how to operate them. She was referring to minorities. I love that from the Left. But that’s stunning.

Evan Nappen 29:29

Apparently, they have that view when it comes even to being able to provide an ID to vote. That somehow, yeah, of course, yeah, too incompetent to even be able to produce an ID to vote. Page – 10 – of 12

Teddy Nappen 29:41

Which the polling from even CNN had to admit that. From the very polling that like 90% of blacks and then like I think the number was like 95 have spent crazy number high number showing it yeah that’s ridiculous you need to show ID for everything. But they just have to paint it like oh the poor minority they’re not smart enough like. That is such a racist argument the Left makes, and they’re allowed to get away with it. But anyways, they use that term “food desert”. Well, I’ve stolen that term and turned it into “gun desert”. Where you see this. They’re suing gun dealers into oblivion. Doing their best. From like just ordinances they can’t operate their business, to anything they can to destroy the storefront of gun stores.

Evan Nappen 30:06

So, that is to get rid of gun shops and stores.

Teddy Nappen 30:25

and making it impossible to get firearms.

Evan Nappen 30:30

I like this. So, they’re creating “gun deserts” by intense bureaucracy. Aggressive over enforcement of every minor thing they can come up with. Of making as many bureaucratic hurdles and problems as they possibly can to create. I really like that, Teddy. “Gun deserts” is exactly what they’re trying to do, and they’re doing it also through the tort system of trying to sue out of existence, gun makers and sellers.

Teddy Nappen 31:04

The way that would kill that immediately is online. You can do all the Gun Broker and stuff, but it all has to go through a dealer. This is what they are trying to push and hear in the article from The Trace. Our friends at The Trace that we always love to talk about.

Teddy Nappen 31:20

Heh, you’ve got to do Oppo Research. Oppo Research.

Teddy Nappen 31:22

Always. “House Democrats Say Direct-to-Door Gun Sales Rule Would Endanger Americans”. (https://www.thetrace.org/2026/07/atf-direct-to-door-gun-rule-raskin/) I love the false premise. Immediately logical fallacy. They assuming that it would cause danger, just to say assuming that. Lawmakers warn proposal would make gun trafficking easier while enriching President Donald Trump’s family. Okay. I love how they try to throw that in as a red herring because Don Jr. has his grab a gun. He’s trying to do the online gun sellers on that front, and they’re saying he’s trying to enrich the business. I’m like, here’s the truth of the matter. I don’t care. I want it so that people have accessibility to firearms by any means on that front. Online. Get it shipped directly to your house. I want it. I want an Amazon Prime delivery, one day delivery. That level. I don’t care. But they try to throw that in to create this whole. Page – 11 – of 12

Evan Nappen 32:20

And that’s what it really should be because it’s a constitutionally protected right. It shouldn’t be regarded as anything else other than that. And remember, America for the majority of its existence-that’s exactly what it was. t’s exactly how it was. Didn’t have any. This is all essentially the modern development of the modern Second Amendment oppression movement that basically began in the ’30s. It came out of after World War One, where the foundation got laid after bringing it over from the UK. That’s where it’s really in terms of that. That’s where we’ve seen this occur.

Teddy Nappen 33:14

What’s funny enough? I actually was able to pull the original Sears catalog from 1897, and you just scroll down the page. Oh, nice selection of shotguns, Dad. If you want to order, it’s only be about oh $10, or if you want to save a little bit, 8.99 for a nice quality shotgun.

Evan Nappen 33:40

Well, yeah. I mean, you could order, you could buy a machine gun. I don’t know if Sears sold them, but you could just get a machine gun sent to you. No problem.

Teddy Nappen 33:48

There were ads for pistols.

Evan Nappen 33:52

Yeah, because it was. That’s what it was. No, I’m just saying that’s exactly how it was for most of that entire period of great American freedom. But the good news is we’re making headway in gaining our rights back. So much so that I believe we can get back to virtual complete freedom. We really can get there. And why? Because if you think about it, what did the Bruen decision do? It set a time marker, if you will, for what laws are constitutional or not by what having to show historical analog, a historical analog to the current law. And if you can’t do that, then essentially the law is unconstitutional. So, if you boil it down, what St. Thomas did in Bruen was the great reset of the Second Amendment to what it originally was and how it operated. Because that is what the test boils down to: the Great Reset. Go back. What has been forced upon us, violating our rights, isn’t valid is contrary to the guarantee of our Second Amendment rights, and so this is why so many cases, so much winning. This is extremely exciting because of those things, and I want to mention that this has Been quite a period of time here where we’re gaining so much, and yet New Jersey keeps digging their heels in, kicking and screaming, and trying to stop law-abiding citizens and all these ways of abuse.

Evan Nappen 35:59

I also want to mention that I am hiring again. I am looking for an attorney to hire. We need more manpower with what we’re doing. If you’re an attorney or know someone who is that wants to fight for Second Amendment rights, get a hold of me because we’re looking to add another great Second Amendment attorney to our team. Just go to evannappen.com and let me know.

Evan Nappen 36:27

Also, I want to mention my book, New Jersey Gun Law: The Bible of Jersey Gun Law. If you want to see how many of these gun laws we got to deal with, well, my book’s over 500 pages, 120 topics, all Page – 12 – of 12

question and answer. That book is quite large, and it can in itself be used as a weapon, though I don’t recommend it. But it’s heavy enough, and this will help you not be a GOFU, my friends. And you sure don’t want to be a GOFU, which is something that we deal with all the time. GOFUs, in case you didn’t know, are Gun Owner Fuck Ups, where gun owners make mistakes that can cost them. And let me tell you about this show’s GOFU. Every show we like to have a GOFU where you get to learn for free an expensive lesson. And this GOFU is about knowing what’s in your car, if you’re going to travel, for example, to Canada. I’ve gotten calls, and I’ve gotten people that don’t realize that what they have in their car in terms of firearms, even though it’s legal in the United States, they’re going to have a problem going into Canada. It’s not just guns; it can also be ammo.

Evan Nappen 37:49

I personally almost became a GOFU going into Canada. I was going bear hunting in Canada, and I brought my gun. In those days, you had to check in and do a quasi registration before you were to bring it in. I had a Marlin guide gun, 4570. I love that gun for bear. When I went to do what was needed, suddenly Canadian folks said, “Well, the barrel length has to be over 18 inches on a rifle, and suddenly I was like, “Oh my God! Because in America, you know, it’s 16 for carbines. Now, I honestly was not sure whether a Marlin guide gun had that 16 or 18 inch barrel on. Now, luckily, it was the 18 Canada legal barrel. But man, you had better check and make sure. Don’t even assume that the gun law, even for your hunting gun that is legal in the U.S., is legal if you’re crossing that border. You want to make sure you know what’s in your car before you cross that border, or you can get jammed up and really have a problem. So don’t be a GOFU.

Evan Nappen 39:13

And given Canada’s attitude about guns and everything else, your best bet is not to go to Canada at all if you can avoid it. But if you do, make sure you do a once-over and note in the same way that you check your bags before you travel on an airplane. The same way. Before I go through any metal detector, I do a personal pat down to myself to make sure I don’t have something else on me. You’ve got to do this. You’ve got to be careful. Anytime you’re walking through any checkpoint, you’re vulnerable to becoming a GOFU.

Evan Nappen 39:53

This is Evan Nappen and Teddy Nappen reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens.

Speaker 3 40:06

Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state.