Gun Lawyer Episode 44 Transcript
vaccinated, firearm, guns, no fly list, new jersey, gun, vaccination, second amendment rights, case, individuals, law, seized, court, supreme court, lawyer, fight, database, person, second amendment, criminals
Evan Nappen, Speaker 3
Evan Nappen 00:19
I’m Evan Nappen, and welcome to Gun Lawyer. Well, you know what folks? Today, it boils down to this. No vaccination, No guns. Now you may think, what does getting a COVID vaccination have to do with my ability to have firearms and exercise my Second Amendment rights? Well, I’m going to explain to you exactly what it has to do with, and it is an incredible threat that you need to be aware of.
Evan Nappen 00:57
Let me start by just talking about some things you may not know about the COVID vaccination. Even talking about a COVID vaccination, the lamestream Media and big tech overlords they don’t you even talking about this, but we are going to talk about it. Let me just make it clear. There is a database of every individual who has received a COVID vaccination. You may not be aware of that; you may not even know about it. They do not make a big deal about it. But that database is there because this is an experimental vaccine, and they need to track you and it for the medical and health purposes. So, there is a legitimate reason to do it. But regardless of that, this database exists.
Evan Nappen 01:58
Even though you can go online, and you can see articles, for example, from the Atlantic magazine that says, “No One Actually Knows If You’re Vaccinated” is the title of this article (by Ian Bogost) from May 2021. They claim that the only way for me to know if you’re vaccinated is whether you have that card, the vaccination card. It just says when you got your vaccination shot, etc. That is the only record, supposedly, but you know what? That’s not true. It is not true at all. I even have a case of an individual client, who, in order to attend school submitted proof of vaccination. Apparently, it didn’t jive with the data base that is out there, and this person was contacted by the Department of Health. It is now creating quite an issue. Yeah, it’s out there. How do they do this verification without a database? Because there is one. So, if anyone is telling you there isn’t one, they are wrong. There is one, and I actually have a case of that happening.
Evan Nappen 03:17
Now, with that being said, how does this link occur? Where’s the rub? Well, let me lay a little more groundwork for you. Just a couple months ago, there has been a push, and it’s an idea that has been Page – 2 – of 6
around longer than a couple months ago. But a couple months ago, Rahm Emanuel, who was formerly Obama’s Chief of Staff and a member of the Clinton administration, went on ABCs “This Week” program at the end of March, and he was promoting gun control. And what he said which was interesting is let’s focus, surprisingly, let’s focus on the person instead of the firearm. Now, that statement on its face most of us would agree with, right? It’s not the gun. It’s the person. But you see, even when it comes to that idea, if the person is pro-gun control and wants to take away your rights as an anti-2A rights person, then focusing on the person is really about people control, not gun control. And that is what it’s all about. It’s all about people control.
Evan Nappen 04:46
So, one of Emanuel’s three major proposals that he is pushing is called “No Fly, No Buy”. What it means is that anybody who is on the “No Fly List” becomes a prohibited person for purposes of purchase and possession of a firearm. The idea is to make it a national disqualifier. So, in the same way, when you fill out a 4473, it asks, have you ever been convicted of a crime and have you ever been committed for mental health issues, etc? One of the questions will be, “Are you on the No Fly List?” And of course, they will check it through the NICS database to confirm your answer. If you are on the “No Fly List”, then you will be denied your Second Amendment rights, and it becomes a disqualifier and a prohibitor. This is what they are looking to do.
Evan Nappen 05:52
Now, you need to know that New Jersey already has such a law. So, this is not something that is not being done in any of the experimental states. New Jersey is one of them, as you know, from my other shows where I talked about these experimental states. New Jersey already prohibits individuals that are on the “Consolidated Terrorist Watchlist”. Nobody really knows how you get on these lists, but the “Consolidated Terrorist Watchlist” appears to already include the “No Fly List” and the “Selected Persons List” and whatever other stuff they want to throw into this category that makes you ineligible for flying on a plane. In New Jersey they have made it a disqualifier if you are on such a list. So, it is not as if no government in New Jersey has not already done this. This was done. And here’s the kicker, folks. Do you know who signed that into law in New Jersey? Governor Christie, that’s right, a Republican signed into law, the no terrorist watchlist guns prohibitor. So, do not think that this cannot cross the aisle to get this done when a Republican has already signed off on it as Governor of a state.
Evan Nappen 07:23
So, here we have it now where the proposal is to put a “No Fly – No Buy” law on the Federal books to stop individuals from being able to have guns that are on this list. As far as support for this? Well, Joe Biden is in support of it. He was asked about the “No Fly, No Buy” list, and he said, yes, if the government considers you too dangerous to board a plane, then you should not be able to buy a gun. So, Biden, of course, supports this. It is being pushed by those operatives there in the Clinton and Biden and Obama administrations. Now we have the link, and here is where it all comes together. Keep in mind, there is an existing database of vaccinated persons. There is a push to have the “No Fly, No Buy”. The No Fly List bars you from guns.
Evan Nappen 08:46 Page – 3 – of 6
Then what do we have this week? Well, we have Juliette Kayyem, a former Assistant Secretary for Homeland Security under President Obama. Isn’t that interesting? The link to Obama as well as with Rahm Emanuel. She is a faculty Chair of Homeland Security Program at Harvard and at the Kennedy School of Government. She is the author of “Security Mom”, an unclassified guide for protecting our homeland, and your home and what does she propose? She proposes that the unvaccinated be put on the “No Fly List”. Think of that, folks. If you have chosen not to be vaccinated, then they want to put you on the “No Fly List”.
Evan Nappen 09:44
Simultaneously, we get a gun ban that says anybody on the “No Fly List”, cannot buy, possess, or own guns. Now being unvaccinated means you have lost your Second Amendment rights and no longer can possess, own, or purchase firearms. All the pieces are there for this to happen. The database can be a purge and merge and done. You can know who has been vaccinated and who has not been. Then it can easily be added to the “No Fly List”. All it takes is a law that says you are prohibited from guns if you are on the No Fly List. This is a genuine threat that is out there. The timing of proposing that the unvaccinated be on the No Fly List and the push by Rahm Emanuel and others to create the No Fly List gun ban. I have just put the pieces together so that you can see the threat.
Evan Nappen 11:03
Think of who this impacts by the way. Who are those that are not getting vaccinated? Many are libertarian minded, many are conservative, many are taking this position over making their individual choice. Not only that, but they have done studies showing that there is a significant number of minorities, even outweighing whites that are not getting vaccinated. Whatever the reasons for that may be, there is a larger percentage of blacks and other minorities that are not getting or have not gotten vaccinated. So, if you put this together in this way, you will now disarm and stop from having guns, large majorities of minorities, conservatives and libertarians that have chosen to decide what goes in their body and what does not. By not being vaccinated, they end up forfeiting their gun rights.
Evan Nappen 12:16
So, folks, you have got to be aware of this. We have got to fight this on all fronts. We have to fight the No Fly, No Buy concept. We have to fight putting unvaccinated people on the No Fly List. This all has to be stopped. People have to recognize the dire ramifications of these things being passed and implemented. You know that they can do this and who knows, they may even try to do it, or at least part of it, by Executive Order. Because there is plenty of executive order abuse going on in the Biden administration as well. So, be on guard and stay vigilant. When I come back, I want to tell you about a great new case that we filed with the United States Supreme Court. It is something, maybe a glimmer of hope.
Speaker 3 13:17
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, Page – 4 – of 6
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 14:36
You’re listening to Gun Lawyer with Attorney Evan Nappen. Available wherever you get your favorite podcast.
Evan Nappen 14:53
Welcome back and let me tell you about something I am really excited about. One of the fun things that we get to do in the practice of gun law is we get to bring challenges to the Appellate Courts and particularly to the U.S. Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court takes a case, we are going to really see change possible here. That is very, very exciting, and it makes the practice of gun law fun knowing that we are chipping away at gaining our rights back. Rights that have deteriorated upon us by politicians that have passed these horrible and outrageous laws infringing on our rights. With the rebirth of the Second Amendment, and in terms of rights, it really is a rebirth, because it was not until the Heller and McDonald decisions in 2008 and 2010 coming about, that we have even been able to change the whole dynamic. Of course, the anti-gun courts and states are resistant. They only will do it kicking and screaming it seems to get the change that is needed. But nonetheless, the pressure is on, the fight is in, and we are making progress.
Evan Nappen 16:22
So, an exciting development, as I am sure you are aware, we’ve talked about it, is the (New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v.) Corlette case in New York. The Supreme Court has granted certiorari, and they are going to render a decision probably by June. I think their oral arguments are set for September I think. It is all in play, and we are very optimistic here with the New York case. But following up on that case, there are other cases in the pipeline, and there are cases that are going to be impacted. As the Supreme Court is taking more and more of the Second Amendment cases, to further expand and explore and give us case law that we can utilize, I am very honored, as well as the other members of my firm, to be trying to be a part of that with the cases that we have put before them.
Evan Nappen 17:27
We have put a case together that is very exciting, and it is a request to the Court. It is a Petition for Writ of Certiorari which is what you do when you ask the Supreme Court to review the issue. The name of this case is PZ – two initials for keeping the individual’s name out of it. But in the PZ case, we have raised some great questions of law. If the Court grants certiorari on this case in any way, it can, hopefully, take down New Jersey’s gun control scheme. At least greatly impact it and get rid of the horribly unfair practices that have been put into this, and it will stand as a case to warn and/or be used against other states that have put such horrible licensing laws in place, designed to discourage. We are talking about making the license as difficult as possible with standards that are vague and arbitrary and Page – 5 – of 6
saddling individuals with having to make the showing and taking all kinds of abuse, just to get a license and/or to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
Evan Nappen 19:01
The questions that we are presenting here are: #1 – What is the scrutiny level afforded the Second Amendment right to possess firearms in the home? Now that scrutiny level is very important, and the Court has never specifically identified it. Hopefully, we will get that and if they were to go with what is called “strict scrutiny”, the laws that states have passed will much easier fall as unconstitutional under that standard. But whatever the standard is, we really want it to be laid out so that these challenges can take place. The big question here is does a state’s denial of a person’s Second Amendment rights “in the interest of public health, safety or welfare” constitute an unconstitutionally overbroad or vague standard or an unlawful balancing test in offense of the Heller decision, or a wrongful denial of due process notice. In New Jersey, the requirement to get a permit to possess and purchase a rifle or shotgun and/or permit to purchase a handgun is a criteria of a denial that says “in the interest of public health, safety or welfare”. It is so broad and so vague, that we see a ton of abuse on that. How can a constitutional right be at the mercy of such a ridiculously vague, arbitrary standard? It is just too vague and overbroad, and it is unconstitutional. We need the Court to say that.
Evan Nappen 21:09
Another question presented: May the government deny a person their Second Amendment rights in perpetuity, merely because a firearm was seized “for safekeeping and not returned”? Now, what is that? Well, New Jersey passed this other law that creates a disqualifier, and a lot of people are not even aware of it. It says anybody that has had firearms seized pursuant to domestic violence and has not had them returned, is a prohibited person both criminally and to get a license. The significance of this is really great. Many individuals end up having guns seized pursuant to domestic violence, and they were not even the person who was the original suspect of committing domestic violence. We are talking about somebody living in the household, and the son’s girlfriend claims domestic violence against the son. They come to the house, and they take all the guns, including the father’s. Well, the father had nothing to do with any of this, but his guns have been seized and not returned. This is a bar for that father, an innocent third party, no less a person for which the domestic violence complaint.
Evan Nappen 22:44
After the domestic violence complaint is made and the person wins at the final restraining hearing with a judge finds no cause and says no final restraining order should issue, the state is still holding their guns. Even though the TRO (Temporary Restraining Order) has been dismissed, there is no automatic return. Now you have to go through a weapons forfeiture proceeding in Jersey. So, you get served with this weapons forfeiture, and you are trying to earn a living, go to work. And you are thinking, well, what’s the value of these guns? The Prosecutors’ Investigator is going to be such a nice guy to call me up? “Look, we will let you sell the guns to a dealer, and you can get the money. You do not even have to come to court. We will do this order for you.” Aren’t we nice, guys? Yeah, that sounds good. As soon as you agree, those guns get sold, and they were not returned to you. They were seized and not returned. You just made yourself a prohibited person, equivalent of a convicted felon, in New Jersey because you agreed to that. They suckered you, and they do not have to tell you about the ramifications. You don’t know the ramifications, too bad. As a matter of fact, they do not want you to Page – 6 – of 6
know the ramifications. It is not even on the licensing application as a question. Why? Because if people actually knew that, no one would agree to have their gun sold. Everybody would fight it, and guess what? The docket would be out to the year 3000. Nonetheless, we are bringing it up to the U.S. Supreme Court, as a bar that should not even exist, that guns were seized and not returned. It is just outrageous and a denial of due process t.
Evan Nappen 24:29
Finally, is a warrant that is issued to search and seize firearms from a home for “safekeeping” valid probable cause under the Fourth Amendment? With the recent Caniglia case, we believe it is not. Yet this is how New Jersey operates. They seize without a search warrant. Sometimes they actually have this warrant that is baked into the cake. That’s so lame. I think we have serious Fourth Amendment issues going on here, and we are inviting the Court to look at that. This is exciting because we now have the opportunity, because we worked our way up through the chain, for the U.S. Supreme Court to opine on any of these great issues. Any one of which can take down New Jersey’s gun control scheme, and a lot of it or parts of it or anything we can get. We lost our rights incrementally, and we have to gain them back incrementally. This is a path to doing that. The court has actually become one of the most promising paths we have.
Evan Nappen 25:52
The legislature has been hijacked, essentially, and trying to get the changes that way is very difficult. But the Courts, thanks to particularly President Trump for getting three new judges on there that respect the Second Amendment, have really given us great odds in seeing the effect that we are looking for. We put forward the reasons for the petition, and I think some of the reasons you will find very interesting. With New Jersey’s restriction upon firearm acquisition in the interest of public health, safety, welfare, we are putting forward as absolutely unreasonable and unconstitutional based on Heller. Yet the court has ignored the application of Heller to New Jersey and that is where you get the vagueness and the overbreadth, etc. We see it, again, expressed here in the gun seizure disqualifier, which should not even be on the books. Finally, with the challenge to the searching and seizing of guns as takes place in New Jersey and because this is to the U.S. Supreme Court, the ramifications exist nationally, should they choose to grant cert and issue an opinion on this. So, these are exciting times. If you are interested in reading further about this case, the PZ case, you can go to Supreme Court website and read submissions on that.
Evan Nappen 27:53
Meanwhile, beware of the threats that exist. Every day, I get calls from individuals that are law-abiding folks where they’re looking at turning them into criminals. I love my law-abiding criminals. I really do. But I wish our system did not create that, and we have to constantly be vigilant. Knowledge is the key. This is Evan Nappen, reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens.
Speaker 3 28:31
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.