connecticut, firearm, state, gun, system, new jersey, greg, gun rights, law, lawyer, evan, dealer, gun laws, appeal, crashes, gun owners, point, authorization, case, anti
Evan Nappen, Speaker 3, Greg Miller
Evan Nappen 00:20
I’m Evan Nappen and welcome to Gun Lawyer. Today I have a special guest who has been a dear friend of mine for many, many years, and I will be introducing him in just a minute. But I want to tell you first about some craziness coming out of New Jersey. Of course, we are always in a deep battle there for our gun rights. New Jersey is one of those what I call experiment states; where they put forward the anti-gun laws first at the state level and then try to make them go national. But recently in New Jersey, our Governor Phil Murphy, who is a staunch anti-gunner, in the pursuit of the celebration, (believe it or not the celebration) of National New Jersey Day. Yes, that is actually a thing called National New Jersey Day. Governor Phil Murphy announced that he is going to be changing the names of the rest stops on the parkway, and they have picked a variety of new names. I am not making this up. Of course, most are pop stars and such. It is very rare to have anyone of historical or of actual significance. Many are political and kind of hard to believe. We are actually going to have at Connie Chung Rest Stop Yes, named after the television journalist. I guess they were really reaching to try to fill in that spot.
Evan Nappen 01:58
But what I love the best, without a doubt, is the renaming of the Montvale Rest Stop which is the very first rest stop at the top of New Jersey. When you come into New Jersey, the first rest stop that you are going to hit is being named after James Gandolfini. Yes, that will officially be known as the Tony Soprano Rest Stop. Now what could be more appropriate than New Jersey then immediately when you come into the state, the very first rest stop you are going to encounter is the Tony Soprano Rest Stop. I am sure they will have pamphlets there for taking the Tony Soprano Tour. You can visit the Bada Bing, aka Satin Dolls. So, it is there to see that, and you can go down to the Meadowlands and see where the bodies are buried. You can check out all the great episodes out of “The Sopranos” that really represent New Jersey at its finest, including the episode when Tony Soprano faced gun charges in New Jersey, that was actually a great episode. It was more realistic than you think. But anyway, these new names celebrating National New Jersey Day will surely be fun. And I hope to never see you in New Jersey because just stepping foot in New Jersey puts you in danger of your freedom, your rights and your liberty.
Evan Nappen 03:27
Now today, as I said, I am happy to say I have a great guest on, and his name is Greg Miller. I have known Greg since the late 1980s. Both Greg and I were employed at the very first firearm law firm in the nation, Benenson and Kates, in New York. That is where I met Greg and have been friends ever since. Greg is very active in his State of Connecticut. Greg is a gun rights activist in Connecticut the way I am in New Jersey. He has quite a background in defending gun rights, and he is counsel to CCDL, which is the Connecticut Citizens Defense League. They are a gun rights group in Connecticut and has over 40,000 members. Greg has done work for the NRA and just so many pro-gun issues. I am really glad to have Greg here today. Hello, Greg. How are you doing, man?
Greg Miller 04:37
Good evening, Evan. We are doing well on kind of a stormy night in Connecticut.
Evan Nappen 04:43
Yeah, we did pick a good one here to do today. Now, I know there is so much going on in Connecticut, and you really have quite a role there. But one of the key issues that I am really concerned with, and I think our listeners would really want to hear about is how the Connecticut Point of Contact (POC) where the state does the NICS (National Instant Background Check System) checks for the Federal system. But that system has shut down for, what about three weeks or so, where no gun transactions were able to take place in the entire State of Connecticut? Oh, my God, what a denial of gun rights to individual citizens and what a burden to the gun shops trying to survive in these economic times. Greg, can you tell us about that situation?
Greg Miller 05:41
Essentially the states have an option of either using the Federal NICS system, which more or less works pretty well, or they can use their own system. Connecticut elected to use their own system. The problem is that it does not work. It has been bad for years, and they decided that in order to “update it”, what they would do is they would replace the Collins system with a computerized system. And what we were told is that the dealer would simply go and dial on like they do in the Federal NICS system. And lo and behold, instantaneously, we wouldn’t have to fill out forms anymore. Everything would be automated, and everything would be just wonderful. Well, it was a great idea, other than the fact that it was supposed to be implemented a year ago, and a year late. Finally, they bring this thing on with almost no notice, and what does it do? It crashes.
Greg Miller 06:50
You cannot take possession of a firearm in Connecticut until you have an authorization number, which is then going to be placed onto a state form called a DPS-3 (Firearm Bill of Sale). So, the dealers call in and they are supposed to get that authorization number instantaneously, and you are able to pick up your firearm right there, as long as you have a permit. Instead, what happened was when the system crashed, the dealers would originally get a busy tone, at which point they could at least auto redial. But under the new system, it says “please hold”. You cannot redial, and the “please hold” goes nowhere. It will never pick up. Dealers, on average, are dialing in 1,000 times for each gun authorization. This takes hours, if not days. To make it worse. you are required to have the person stand there and wait while the authorization is obtained.
Greg Miller 07:59
If you come in at 10 in the morning and you stand there until six o’clock at night, they then shut off the system. You can come back for another day and take another day off from work. Any midsize dealer typically has two to four employees being paid full time to do nothing but hit redial on the telephone to sit there hundreds, if not thousands of times to simply get a message to “please hold”. It is simply broken. So, we have put the state on notice of the fact that we are seeking an emergency response from the District Court here in Connecticut. We have already had one meeting with the District Court. We have also held a press conference out there, which was well responded by the media, and what did the state respond? Well, they said, “We are not sure what the fuss is. There is no delay. Everything is working perfectly.”
Evan Nappen 09:15
Oh, man. How could they even say that with a straight face, Greg?
Greg Miller 09:25
I guess you are going to have to ask them. It is ludicrous. They are handling a dribble of cases coming through. However, given the fact if you have to call 1000 times in order to get an authorization, however, it gets better. The 1000 times simply gets you through to the State Police. Now let’s assume that you are Latino. The State Police have advised us that Latinos’ names are too common. As such, the new computer system cannot handle transfers for anybody who has a common Latino name. When that happens, they issue what is called a “Temporary Denial”. Now what this is supposed to be, is that for some reason, they got back something ambiguous. But what this is, is simply that the computer takes too long to process, at which point, the program times out and kicks them out. So, it issues a temporary denial.
Greg Miller 10:39
When you get a temporary denial, what you are supposed to do is then call back to find out why you got a temporary denial. Of course, when you try to call back, what happens? You get a thousand “please hold” messages, and you can spend days. We have clients who have spent more than a week trying to call up and find out why they have been denied. The situation has gotten so foolish. We were advised yesterday that a US Federal Agent with his badge and ID came into a gun store to buy a firearm, and the system turned him down. So, we have a temporary denial on a Federal Agent. We have reached the level of ludicrous. Of course, what did they say? Well, “we are working on it. When it is fully implemented, it is going to be much better.” Of course, they don’t tell us when that is.
Evan Nappen 11:43
Wow, that is astounding. Talking about systemic racism; it is built right into the system. Latinos cannot get their next checks done and are getting denied their gun rights just because of their name. That is really insane.
Greg Miller 12:03
The amazing thing here is that there was absolutely no need for this system. The Federal government already has a system that returns an answer consistently, between one minute and five minutes, in a worst case. So, given the fact that we have a federal system that works, why do this at the state level, which doesn’t work.? What we have said to the court is that we are dealing with a fundamental right – your right to acquire a firearm. We are right within the core of Heller here. So, given that we are dealing with a fundamental right, the state has no compelling interest in doing an independent system, which does not work, when there is another alternative, which is easy to use, and is used in almost every other state in the nation.
Evan Nappen 13:08
That is absolutely true. Why does a state want to pay for a system to enforce a federal gun law that they can get for free from the federal government? Why would a state ever want to do this? We’ll be back in a few.
Speaker 3 13:31
For over 30 years, Attorney Evan Nappen has seen what rotten laws do to good people. That’s why he’s dedicated his life to fighting for the rights of America’s gun owners. A fearsome courtroom litigator fighting for rights, justice, and freedom. An unrelenting gun rights spokesman tearing away at anti-gun propaganda to expose the truth. Author of six best-selling books on gun rights, including Nappen on Gun Law, a bright orange gun law Bible that sits atop the desk of virtually every lawyer, police chief, firearms dealer and savvy gun owner. That’s what made Evan Nappen America’s Gun Lawyer. Gun laws are designed to make you a criminal. Don’t become the innocent victim of a vicious anti-gun legal system. This is the guy you want on your side. Keep his name and number in your wallet and hope you never have to use it. But if you live, work, or travel with a firearm, the deck is already stacked against you. You can find him on the web at EvanNappen.com or follow the link on the Gun Lawyer resource page. Evan Nappen – America’s Gun Lawyer.
Speaker 3 14:46
You’re listening to Gun Lawyer with Attorney Evan Nappen. Available wherever you get your favorite podcast.
Evan Nappen 15:01
Hey, we are back, and we have Greg Miller here who is filling us in on the horror show taking place in the State of Connecticut. Individual rights are just being stomped all over by bureaucratic inefficiencies, systems crashing and probably things more nefarious than that. So, Greg, you were going to tell us an excellent story about further antics going on in Connecticut. But before you do, I just want to tell my great listeners, please tell your friends to subscribe to Gun Lawyer podcast. This is how we get our message and voice out there. Big tech is trying to shut us down, pulling all those algorithms and everything else on us so we cannot get the message out. By coming to this show and listening, we can defeat that, get the word out, and talk about these things that they do not want us to talk about. I would also like to just mention my good friend, Mitch Rosen. You know, I use Mitch Rosen’s rig. I love his gun leather, and you will too. He is a buddy and just does great work. I highly recommend checking out Mitch Rosen Extraordinary Gun Leather. So, tell me, Greg, what about this conversation that was overheard? Go right ahead.
Greg Miller 16:31
You cannot make this stuff up. As most of us know, the rank-and-file cops tend to be pro-gun, and they are stuck in the middle of this. They do not like it any more than we do. As you listen in the background, they have the speakerphone on and what are they talking about among themselves? This system does not work. This system is broken. This is ridiculous. And then much to my amusement, a discussion of who brought the donuts this morning. Sometimes people try and drive a wedge between law enforcement and gun owners. The reality is that gun owners are the best friends that law enforcement has – 99% of these guys stand with us. Here they are stuck in this terrible system, where they are having to do things here that they do not want to do, and this is a perfect example of it.
Evan Nappen 17:36
You are absolutely right, and I have experienced that. As a matter of fact, many times my clients tell me they were actually referred to me by the arresting officer because that officer is forced into doing an enforcement on gun laws that he does not believe in and knows that there is a raw deal going on. They refer these folks to me in New Jersey. There are not too many criminal defense attorneys where the law enforcement officer is referring the one they’re arresting to that person. And that’s because of this issue, Greg. Law enforcement is with us, and they do not like this. You are absolutely right. I proudly defend law enforcement, and we are pro law enforcement.
Evan Nappen 18:26
It really does come from the top political brass, and it was set out that way. I think it started with an article in Rolling Stone in the 60s. “Let’s see if we can get the police on the anti-gun side.” They have worked hard at getting the political brass of the police on the anti-gun side, but not the rank and file. That’s absolutely so.
Greg Miller 18:48
The thing that really scares me here, Evan, if you look at gun control across America, and both of us have done this for a long time, the first thing they did is they tried to come on and pass anti-gun laws, which across the country have been rejected. Then they went in and tried to do it through regulations. In most cases, we have managed to strike down those regulations. But here is the latest twist. What they do now is they create a computer system, and that computer system decides whether or not you get an authorization number in order to purchase a firearm. Then when the system crashes, the state is able to come in and say, “Well, we didn’t do anything. We don’t know. It’s just the computer.”
Greg Miller 19:41
This is the new cutting edge of gun control. Blaming it on a nameless, unelected software system developed by someone we cannot see. We did not elect them. We have no control over it. Here’s the next one. This is just interesting with it. The particular software vendor, apparently, we are told that Connecticut chose, is based in California. The gun dealers open up. The lines come on about 8:30 in the morning, and they go to dial in. Let’s assume that the system has crashed, and they need to call in for support to the software vendor. The vendor is in California, and they do not open until 9:00 am Pacific time. So, for the first three to four hours of your business day, half of your business day, the police said like, “We’re sorry, the vendor is not even open.” How could we be so stupid? But why are we doing it at all? We have got a federal system, and it works. And here the state comes in, and they just say, “Oh, we don’t know. It’s not our fault. We didn’t do it.” The poor officers who are there, and they are sitting with the computer crashing over and over again.
Greg Miller 21:08
So, what we are seeing now is that the nature of gun control is changing. They have tried to do this by statutes, and they could not do it. They did not have the votes. They did not have the support. The people have unanimously come back here and said, “Nope, we don’t want these new laws.” They tried to do things by ordinances. We have gone in, and we have managed by public comment to keep those under control as well. So, now they have got a new tactic. What they seem to be doing now is they go out, and they announce that your firearms transaction is going to be approved by an automated system that no human is involved in. Then the software crashes and now at this point, they say, “well, this isn’t our fault.” This is something that every one of us should be watching all across the nation. They can simply blame it on the computer. The politicians say “Oh, no, we’re not anti-gun. We didn’t stop it. It’s just the computer system.” It makes no difference why you are denied your rights. When you are denied your rights, you are denied your rights, and the U.S. Constitution does not allow that. That is why we are headed into the U.S. District Court to assure that this ruse is not allowed to continue.
Evan Nappen 22:31
Greg, that is an excellent point. In New Hampshire, we just passed SB141, which abolishes the State Gun Line. New Hampshire is half a POC, in which, handguns are done by the State and the Feds through NICS do the long arms. It was nothing but problems and trouble throughout the years. Through COVID, it was days and days of delay. It was horrible. They passed a law through both houses of legislature to abolish the gun line, but it is sitting on the Governor’s desk. Now we have a pretty good pro-gun governor. Governor Sununu signed constitutional carry and has done some great things for the Second Amendment. But oddly, there is one so-called friend, a pro- gun group, supposedly, that is against getting rid of the state system. NRA supports the bill to get rid of it. GOA (Gun Owners of America) support the bill to get rid of it.
Evan Nappen 23:39
But this one group has no legitimate reason for wanting to keep it, and the things that they are saying are absolutely untrue as to any advantages the State might have. There are no advantages. You cannot bring appeals through the State. They have to go through the Feds. New Hampshire has no such appeal for a NICS denial. There is no advantage. If the state system goes down, you cannot just go and use the Fed system. They do not allow that. The inordinate delays and just the absolute inefficiency. And yes, just what you are saying, “blame the computer, blaming this system with no name.” It is like the man with no name, but it is the anti-gunner with no name. This is where the blame goes. And you know what? It is time to get rid of it. It needs to be abolished.
Evan Nappen 24:41
Connecticut, unfortunately, is a great example of the problems of when a state runs its own Point of Contact instead of just having the feds handle it when it is a federal gun law. The feds do a good job, amazing to say. It does not really matter whether they do a good job or bad job, it is their law. Let them pay to enforce it. Why should a state pay to enforce a federal gun law? It is contrary to federalism. Hopefully, the New Hampshire governor will do the right thing and sign that bill into law, getting rid of it, and avoiding the suffering that Connecticut gun owners are going through now.
Greg Miller 25:32
It is an amazing thing, Evan. Connecticut was traditionally known as the Gun Valley. Almost all of the gun manufacturers were here. I never would have believed that we could see what Is happening in Connecticut, occurring. Let me give you a couple of examples here of just how bad it has gotten. Under the system, if you want to apply for a pistol permit (without a permit, you cannot buy any firearm in Connecticut; you cannot buy a round of .22 ammunition). So, you have to have a permit to exercise your rights. No matter how you define that, you have to have a permit. So, what is supposed to happen, you’re supposed to either download it or go to your police department. They hand you a package. You fill it out, you bring it down, and you file it with the local department. What they are doing now is they are saying, “well, we’re too busy to accept your application.” We have cases at the moment of communities that are taking six months before they will give you an appointment to even file the application to get a permit. You wait the time. Now in the town that I live in, you walk in, and they do it the same day. There are many towns in Connecticut that follow the spirit of the law, and they do it instantly. But we have a number of communities out here who do not.
Evan Nappen 27:00
That is very New Jerseyesque, because that is what happens in New Jersey. It is a similar thing.
Greg Miller 27:08
So, here is number two. Once you file the application, by statute in Connecticut, they have eight weeks to decide. They can grant it, or they can deny it. But they must take one of those actions within eight weeks. We have departments taking up to a year to make a decision. Now, under the law, you can file an appeal after 60 days. But do these police departments tell you that you have a right of appeal? No. They tell you, “Listen, we’re backed up. We’ll get to it as soon as we can.” Of course, for most people, they do not want to create hostility with the officer who is reviewing it. So, they do nothing. They have waited months to file, and then they wait, at times, almost a year for it to be approved.
Greg Miller 28:02
When it is approved, they get something that is called a temporary license. That temporary license does not actually do anything. Within 60 days, you have to go to the State Police to get your state license, which in theory is automatically approved. You just walk in, and they hand it to you on the spot. Traditionally, it took 10 minutes. Well, what they are doing now is they are telling you that at most of the barracks where they will accept these, they have a wait of more than 60 days for you to come in and get it. But a temporary license is only good for 60 days. If you have to wait more than 60 days, your temporary license expires, at which point they won’t accept it. They send you back to your town and say, “You have to get your municipality to issue you another temporary license.” Or in one case we know of, they said you have to start all over.
Evan Nappen 28:59
Wow. Well, Greg, it is really sad to see that Connecticut has gone down this slippery slope. Like you said, it is hard to believe because of the strength of gun manufacturing and Connecticut being built on gun manufacturer in large part historically. Apparently, that has changed significantly. And unfortunately, it is getting more and more like New Jersey.
Greg Miller 29:29
My co-counsel here with CCDL are Doug Dubitsky and Craig Fishbein, both very, very capable attorneys. Basically, what we have concluded is that it is time to challenge the entire system. When we look at it, the authorizations are utterly unacceptable. We have gotten to a point where there is no compelling state interest narrowly tailored for the way that they currently handle a fundamental right.
Evan Nappen 30:06
So, aren’t we going to need a strict scrutiny test put out by the Supreme Court, which hopefully we will get?
Greg Miller 30:16
The real key, the problem that we have seen is the use of intermediate scrutiny which is meaningless. Most courts will find that essentially, any justification can be found to meet intermediate scrutiny, and we need to get away from it. When we look at fundamental rights, we really have to do that narrowly tailored analysis. If there is a less obtrusive way to do this, it needs to be done. If you have a right, it is not a right if you cannot exercise it. So, that is where we are headed. We have a tentative commitment from one of the major national organizations to help us with this. I am pleased to say that U.S. Law Shield has also indicated that they are going to come in and help us. The thought process right now is that we are going to go after the entire system. We are going to look at it from start to finish. As we look at this at every point within the system, they simply disregard the rights of the individual.
Greg Miller 31:39
Because when a person (listen, I’m preaching to the converted) One of the women we spoke with today, she got a restraining order against a boyfriend, who had previously been convicted of seriously injuring another woman. But once she got that restraining order, she wanted to get a firearm, and they took seven months to process her application to submit it. Now, eight months later, she is still waiting for her permit. What possible argument is there that we have a Second Amendment right if when you need a firearm, you have got to wait 15 months for it. It is meaningless.
Evan Nappen 32:30
Absolutely. Wow. Well, New Jersey and Connecticut really have a lot of issues being pushed there, Greg, that are just as crazy. We are also fighting the license delays. I see that all the time. You have an appeal. We do not even have an appeals process built in. It is supposed to be done within 30 days, but it has no teeth.
Greg Miller 33:02
Our appeals right now, they’re working 18 months to 36 months to get an appeal of a denial of a pistol permit. However, I contacted the board, and we have a carry permit, and we have a Certificate of Eligibility. A Certificate of Eligibility simply allows you to purchase a firearm. I came in and said, “Listen, under Heller, we have a right to purchase. As such, I have a right to a prompt appeal in exactly the same way as you have a right to speedy trial.” The board agreed with me, and they gave us an appeal in 10 days rather than a year and a half. I have not seen a lot of these cases, but we have managed to push a few of them through.
Greg Miller 34:02
The other interesting one. I don’t know if you remember, Evan? Way back in the day, you know, back in horse drawn carriages. The President of Ruger was an attorney by the name of Steve Sanetti.
Evan Nappen 34:15
Oh, yes. Steve Sanetti.
Greg Miller 34:18
Steve went on to NSSF (National Shooting Sports Foundation), became President and CEO of National Shooting Sports Foundation. He has just been named to the Connecticut Board of Firearms Permit Examiners. The state is not very happy about it, but under a technical procedure, Steve was just appointed. It is going to be really interesting to see what happens on that board with a real topflight lawyer sitting on it.
Evan Nappen 34:48
Wow. That is going to be good.
Greg Miller 34:53
There are some good things happening here. The nature of the judiciary is improving. We have a number of very fine judges that have taken the bench within the last few years. We have a better Supreme Court, obviously, than we have had in a very long time. As the cases work up, I do believe they are going to strike down these restrictive, time- consuming systems that we have traditionally seen in New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Illinois, Hawaii. How can Hawaii possibly be constitutional?
Evan Nappen 35:31
Well, think back to when we were both at Benson and Kates. If you look back from then to now, we really have seen amazing changes. Heller and McDonald, and just the whole turnaround, even academically. We witnessed the buildup so that these things could happen. Back then, the idea of the Second Amendment being an individual right, was laughed at. You would get nowhere. So, it is amazing the progress in just our careers, of seeing that change.
Greg Miller 36:07
Tribe on Constitutional Law. (American Constitutional Law by Laurence H. Tribe, Professor of Constitutional Law, Harvard University) Absolutely. Right in there. The Second Amendment is not an individual right. Back in 1993 to 95, Mark (Benenson) and I were working on a case called Benjamin versus Bailey, and in the case, we challenged the Connecticut Assault Weapons Law. DEFOREST H. BENJAMIN, JR., ET AL. v. JOHN M. BAILEY ET AL., 234 Conn. 455 (1995) We came in and we said, these assault weapons law, even if there was a compelling state interest, they are so badly written that they do not withstand due process under void for vagueness. The lower court came back, and they said, while we are not really sure what the law means, the firearms dealers, they know a lot about these guns. So, we find that it is not vague, because it is not unreasonable to ask a firearms buyer to simply go to the dealer and to ask them whether or not it is one of these banned weapons. We’ll go ask the fox whether or not it is okay to eat the chicken. What kind of a legal standard is this? If the dealer says it is okay, it’s okay.
Evan Nappen 37:33
Well, that is ridiculous. I actually won on that issue when I had New Jersey’s law declared unconstitutional in Merrill. But that was in the lower court on a criminal matter. The judge said, yeah, it’s vague because no one knows what “substantially identical” means and knocked it out. Then the gun rights group brought it into Federal Court, and that is when the Attorney General promulgated his opinion that defined substantially identical by the 1994 Federal Crime Bill. It was kind of amazing that a law passed by New Jersey in 1990, with an unconstitutionally vague term, was somehow defined by a federal law passed four years later and upheld its constitutionality on that. That was amazing.
Greg Miller 38:27
Connecticut in its ultimate wisdom. Mark, and I, along with Wesley Horton, a tremendous constitutional lawyer, we take it up to the Connecticut Supreme Court. And what did the Connecticut Supreme Court say? Well, you can’t really ask the dealer whether or not something is legal. So, what you are going to do is you will look at the manufacturer’s catalog. Then depending on what it says in the catalog, you will be able to determine whether or not it is one of these and therefore it is not void for vagueness.
Evan Nappen 39:00
They treated it like pornography, almost like you know it, when you see it.
Greg Miller 39:06
When Benenson & Kates came in with Horton and Mahler on the Benjamin versus Bailey case, we had a tremendous team. We had some very, very fine lawyers, and we were sitting there working through everything. But at the same time, the State of Connecticut, I understand put 11 attorneys on the case, full time. The Attorney General in Connecticut has 100 and I believe it’s 130 attorneys on staff. So, as a private attorney, when you bring a firearms case up against the State, you understand that you are coming up potentially against 100 lawyers. It is very, very hard to do. The other thing is that they are being paid by the state They have an unlimited budget and unlimited lawyers.
Greg Miller 40:06
If you are a small lawyer, and you know, Evan and I are both relatively small firms, it is very, very challenging. Right now, in Connecticut, Doug Dubitsky is a former partner with one of the largest law firms in Connecticut. He is an elected state representative. He retired from the large firm, and now has dedicated himself to handling pro 2A cases with tremendous resources, a fine lawyer. Craig Fishbein is the number two lawyer from with CCDL that I am working with. Craig has represented the largest range in Connecticut over a period of decades, many, many years around this. As I said, he is now an elected state representative. He is also a former member of the State Board of Firearms Permit Examiners.
Greg Miller 41:08
I have been doing this for 36 years, and I have represented many manufacturers and dealers. I am an FFL, and I serve as the responsible person on a Type 10. So, when you look at all of this and you look at those of us who do this on a daily basis, and wondering, when do we get to the point where we finally can get heard by the high court? Here we are. We are about to finally see fruition of these years, these decades, that so many of us have worked on all across the industry. It’s Steve Halbrook and Richard Gardner. It is Evan’s work down there, mine up through Connecticut, and across this nation. It literally has taken 30 years to get this in front of the court, and it is just about to happen.
Evan Nappen 42:11
This is Evan Nappen, reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens. Thank you, Greg, for being here today and letting the listeners learn what is going on in Connecticut.
Greg Miller 42:24
Speaker 3 42:25
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.