Gun Lawyer Episode 52 Transcript
archery, firearm, law, new jersey, ballistic knife, gun, fight, license, individuals, charges, arrow, combat, mutual, carry, state, shooting, ban, arms, evan, bow
Evan Nappen, Speaker 3
Evan Nappen 00:19
I am Evan Nappen and welcome to Gun Lawyer. Today I want to talk about archery control. That’s right. We all know about gun control. But have you ever heard about archery control? Well, let me tell you, folks, it is going to be coming our way. Within the last few days, there was a mass killing in Norway, and this mass killing was done with a bow and arrow. Not kidding. It is the largest mass killing in Norway since 2011, and it was done with a bow and arrow. We are talking about five people being killed and two others injured in an attack with a bow and arrow. From the information that has come out, it appears that a 37-year-old Danish citizen has been arrested after this mass slaughter. It is apparent from the police that they were actually familiar with him. They had been afraid that he had been radicalized in his conversion to Islam, and he was kind of on the radar. But they had not done anything else apparently and plainly not enough to stop him from his killing spree.
Evan Nappen 02:16
But here we have what is essentially now a new development, in terms of modern times, of course, in a tool for terrorism. This tool of the terrorist is a bow and arrow. Of course, the founding philosophy, the key for anything that the anti-gunners do, is never let a good tragedy go to waste, right? They never do that. So, this is going to be in line with that, and you are going to see exploitation because the folks that are against weapons, against our rights, against our ability to defend ourselves, they look to go at everything they to create bans and problems. It is a continuous, ongoing fight. Now, this creates kind of a new dimension. The significance of archery, in this regard, is really important. Not only has archery and archers been part of our history, for years and years in terms of military as well and classic battles. The archer has always played this role, but now the archer is taking on a role as being something that terrorists can utilize.
Evan Nappen 03:54
I am sure that we are going to see calls. I cannot imagine that Norway, which is very, very strict on its gun laws, is not going to try to blame the object because that seems to be something they routinely do. So, I expect we will see the object being blamed for the atrocities and wrongdoing of an individual, and this is, of course, a pattern. It relates so much to our Second Amendment rights because the right to keep and bear arms is not the right to keep and bear guns. It is the right to keep and bear arms, and Page – 2 – of 7
arms cover all sorts of personal weapons, from edge weapons, to firearms, to clubs, impact weapons, and of course bows and arrows. They are part of the right to keep and bear arms.
Evan Nappen 05:03
As a matter of fact, our founding fathers knew very well the importance of archery. It was at a point in our revolution in early 1777, when the colonists were desperate for arms, absolutely desperate, and it was before the ship arrived from France that had 12,000 stands of arms that they didn’t even know was coming. Washington put out a call to go all through the countryside and to find anything that would shoot so they could arm the rebels and those fighting for liberty. Benjamin Franklin suggested, and this suggestion was taken very seriously, that the colonists arm themselves with bows and arrows. So, this is actually part of the right to keep and bear arms. It traces back to our own history, where it was a measure that might have been implemented in our fight for liberty and independence. The issues with archery are also personally very important to me. My wonderful daughter, who you may know, Abby, was a competition archer. She was on the junior dream team for the Olympics, and she actually trained at the Olympic center. She was quite the competitor. So, we have always had a close tie to archery and the love of archery, and also for hunting and bow hunting. Yet, I am sure we are going to now encounter attempts at further regulation.
Evan Nappen 07:12
In the past, I actually had a case out of Point Pleasant Beach, many, many years ago, in which my client was target shooting with his bow and arrow in an extremely safe manner. His target was up against, literally, a side of a barn, and he was just enjoying himself and practicing his archery in this manner. The police end up coming there because they just saw him practicing archery, like so what, completely safe. Even his relative came out of the house next door, I think it was either his uncle or his grandfather who was formerly a police officer, I believe. He comes out and the officers there said you cannot shoot here It is prohibited. They were like, what do you mean? And the officer said, No, no, you are not allowed. So, my client says, Okay, if you say I am not allowed, and then he was just going to say, no problem. But the officer proceeded to charge him with discharge of a firearm, not kidding, a firearm.
Evan Nappen 08:36
So, now he has these charges, and he comes to me. I look up the ordinance under the town that he is actually charged with, and it prohibits discharge of a firearm. Yes. And even an air rifle. That’s true. Actual firearms and air guns, but nothing prohibiting bow and arrow shooting. It was not part of it. So, I said, look, they don’t have any case. I went to the prosecutor, and I said, look, this needs to be dropped. He did nothing wrong. It was legal for him to be practicing archery in a totally safe manner, and he was not in violation of any town ordinance. So, it needs to go. The prosecutor ended up coming back to me and he said, well, we will drop it as long as your client stipulates to probable cause. Now, what that means is you stipulate to probable cause, meaning there was a basis to charge you with the offense. The reason they want that is it stops you from suing because there was probable cause for your arrest. You admitted to it and that protects them civilly. I talked with my client, and we said he is not going to do that. He is not going to do that. I said to the prosecutor, you just need to drop it because there is nothing here for you to prosecute on. Page – 3 – of 7
Evan Nappen 10:13
My client is not going to stipulate to probable cause because he probably is going to sue you, to be honest, because he had to pay legal fees and everything that he has been put through. The bottom line is you do not have a case, and you do not have a law here. It needs to go, and guess what? They dropped the charge. The officer who charged him was not happy, but as I pointed out, what are you going to claim in the trial? That he had a string gun? I mean what? It is a bow and arrow. It is not part of the law. So, it got dropped, and he actually did bring a lawsuit and did get recovery over what happened to him. But here was this bias against weapons and archery etc. coming to light.
Evan Nappen 11:06
New Jersey particularly has a serious potential problem if they are going to push archery control, and I will tell you why. It is because New Jersey has what is called a ballistic knife ban. That’s right. Do you know what a ballistic knife law is or a ballistic knife itself? It is a knife that shoots are basically what it was sold as, and there was a federal ban put in place on ballistic knives. If you want to see a ballistic knife in action, you can watch Arnold Schwarzenegger in the commando movie where he actually uses two of the ballistic knives to go at his opponents. It is kind of interesting because it was really put in there I guess as propaganda at the time. There was a push federally to ban ballistic knives, and they also got banned in New Jersey. Interestingly, ballistic knives have a blade and a tube, and the tube goes inside another tube and that ends up with a spring. When you push it, it fires out with the spring shooting the blade and the tube.
Evan Nappen 12:44
They also claimed that this was developed by the Russians as spetsnaz or whatever. I do not know whether that is actually true or not, but the bottom line here is they are prohibited. Believe it or not, the federal ballistic knife law was signed in by Ronald Reagan. It was an anti-knife law, and it was signed by a Republican, who normally we have a lot of admiration for. The person who signed in the Jersey law was Governor Kean, yet another Republican. So, this was the trend and the fashionable thing to do at the time. Even though there were no incidents of ballistic knives being used unlawfully against any person. But why should that stop a law banning them from taking effect?
Evan Nappen 13:44
The problem is when you look at the definition, particularly one that passed in New Jersey, a ballistic knife, get a load of this, here is what it says, a ballistic knife means any weapon or other device capable of lethal use, and which can propel a knife blade, weapon or other device capable of lethal use, which can propel a knife blade. Oh, you mean like a bow and arrow with a razor broadhead? Hmm. Is it a capable of lethal use? You betcha. Is it propelling a knife blade? What is on those broadheads? That’s right. You may say, well, is that Evan doing that fear mongering thing again? No, no, no. Let me explain something. Florida passed a ballistic knife ban, but Florida’s law specifically exempts archery, specifically exempts broadheads, etc. Why do you think they specifically exempted them? Because they realized that if they did not, it would create a prohibition. So, New Jersey really could, at any moment based on the ballistic knife law, ban the sale, ban the possession, and have a concerted effort to stop razor broadheads from being used.
Evan Nappen 15:18 Page – 4 – of 7
Of course, it would completely shut down bow hunting season when you can’t have that. But who knows? If what happened in Norway is now copied by other individuals, whether because they are “radicalized” or not, and it now becomes a known weapon of choice. You can well see this as a possibility, I am sure. So, beware. We are constantly having to be vigilant over these things. To add more issues to it, arrows will pretty readily punch through ballistic vests. Ballistic vests, the normal body armor, is designed for bullets. Unless you have armor that uses plates, they are not stab proof, and they sure as heck are not razor broadhead proof or even arrow proof. It is an entirely different dynamic as to what those vests are designed to stop. So, that danger can be out there as well for the other side to be shouting from the hilltops. This is something that puts another challenge to us, for all of us that love archery and love bow hunting. etc. But now, due to the wrongdoing of one person in this atrocity, it may very well be setting a trend that could really bode poorly. Yet another attack on our Second Amendment rights, via archery control. When we come back, I have some great questions from our listeners. Some really interesting stuff.
Speaker 3 17:25
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, that 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 18:40
You’re listening to Gun Lawyer with Attorney Evan Nappen. Available wherever you get your favorite podcast.
Evan Nappen 18:56
I want to remind everyone how much I appreciate your listening to Gun Lawyer. I really enjoy being able to talk to you and tell you my thoughts about current events and things that are important for you to know to protect yourself. Things that do not get shut down by the media because this is my podcast and you are my listeners. We are not subject to algorithms and shadow banning and all that. This lets us talk about those things. So, make sure you subscribe to Gun Lawyer and tell your friends to listen. It really means a lot as we build up our wonderful base of subscribers, and we are able to get the word out. You can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We are out there on every available source, whether it’s I Heart, CBS, Spotify or Audible. It’s all there. If you want to explore further, go to our website at www.gun.lawyer.
Evan Nappen 20:01 Page – 5 – of 7
I have got a really interesting question here. This came from Paul, and what Paul is asking about is the following. He says, “regarding mutual combat. Evan, I’ve been listening to your podcast for the last few months. It is fantastic, keep up the great work. I am backed up a bit on shows. So, my apologies if you already addressed this. ” Frankly, I did not. So, this is good. “Here is my question. I heard about gangbangers that shot up a house in Chicago from their vehicle on the street. The other gangbangers inside the house shot back. Seventy rounds of ammo apparently fired in the exchange. I believe at least one person died. People were arrested and released by the prosecutor because of “mutual combat”. All charges were dropped on both sides. Can you explain the rationale behind mutual combat from a legal perspective on an upcoming podcast? What is it and how does it apply to cases like this?
Evan Nappen 21:20
I would be happy to discuss that, because it is very interesting. What are they talking about? What happened? I am going to reference an article posted under Fox News. It says, “Prosecutors reject charges for five suspects involved in deadly Chicago shootout.” They cite mutual combat and then report, “It’s just like the Wild West one police source said of the gun crimes in Chicago.” So, look at that. How can this be? Well, the article goes into it pretty thoroughly. It makes it clear that prosecutors rejected charging five suspects in this gang shootout, and the police were not happy with that because they wanted murder and aggravated battery charges. Instead, it was apparently dropped, and all the suspects were released without charges. It says, “mutual combatants was cited as a reason for the rejection”, a police report reviewed by Chicago Sun Times said of the State Attorney’s decision.
Evan Nappen 23:00
So, this is pretty interesting. How can you have a shootout between gangs and 70 rounds expelled and an individual is killed allegedly here. It goes on to say that mutual combat is a legal phrase. It is a fight into which both parties enter willingly or in which two persons upon a sudden quarrel and in hot blood, mutually fight upon equal terms. So, that is mutual combat, and it doesn’t necessarily seem that criminal charges can’t be brought. It may be that it is a form of mitigation or maybe it makes it a lesser offense, I don’t know. But the Cook County Attorney’s Office apparently issued a statement, and they had a different reason. They said that they determined that the evidence was insufficient to meet their burden of proof to approve felony charges. They were basing it on insufficient evidence, but the Cook County State Attorney’s Office did not respond to the report regarding mutual combat. It seems to me that although mutual combat may have been what occurred there, it seems more that the reason the prosecutor is dropping it is because of the insufficiency of evidence. Remember it is not just that the guns are hot, and the perpetrators are not. It needs evidence and proofs, and they have to be able to demonstrate this. Otherwise, it is just going to be a glorious waste of time if they attempt to bring the case. For whatever reason, at least at this moment, they are saying they do not have enough evidence to proceed.
Evan Nappen 25:10
But the mutual combat really raises some serious, serious questions. Frankly, I would not put forward that mutual combat is a good idea in terms of trying to allege that for your self-defense case or use of justifiable force. That you both agreed to go and try to kill each other just does not play well. If you are going to be justified in your use of force, there are entire standards for that. Now, it is true that there are certain levels, particularly in terms of simple assault, and such. If it is mutual combat where you both Page – 6 – of 7
consensually went into the fight, that can lower the level of the offense. I have seen that, but not just to knock out use of deadly force completely. I really would lean more towards the prosecutors having a lot of trouble getting the evidence that they need when two gangs are involved, and nobody is really talking. Witnesses probably want nothing whatsoever to do with it. So, that would seem to make more sense as to what actually occurred there.
Evan Nappen 26:37
I got another fun question here, and this one was from Tom. Tom says, Evan, greatly enjoyed your podcast, and he wanted me to discuss LEOSA, which I would be happy to talk a little bit about right now. LEOSA is the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act. It is a law that was passed to give law enforcement, both active law enforcement and retired law enforcement, the ability to carry a handgun concealed anywhere in the United States. It is a federal preemptive law that basically allows for national carry. The problem we have, of course, is how that gets applied to all the states. New Jersey, of course, does not want to recognize it; at least to the degree that they cannot recognize it. It is always kicking and screaming with Jersey, even when it’s law enforcement or retired law enforcement, that want to exercise their rights under LEOSA.
Evan Nappen 27:55
The idea of a preemptive federal law allowing for carry actually goes back further than LEOSA. A lot of folks do not know or realize that the very first pre-emptive national carry law passed in the United States is federal preemption for armored car personnel. That’s right. They were the first. The ability for armored car personnel to carry their firearms throughout the country, across state lines, to do their job. Armored car individuals. They were the first, and it still is an exemption that is pre-emptive of state laws. That is what cut the path for LEOSA, which came years later for current and retired law enforcement.
Evan Nappen 29:03
Now, we have had attempts to have national reciprocity for individuals that have carry licenses. This is something that I am really, really in favor of, because I have had to deal with and save and help so many individuals in New Jersey. Individuals who were non- residents that came into New Jersey with a carry license and just did not realize that their carry license was not honored by New Jersey. Of course, the most famous case being the Shaneen Allen case. We have had dozens and dozens of other cases where individuals come here, and many times it is because they have a certain belief that is not illogical, but it is not the law. The belief is that – I have this carry license from my home state, just like I have a driver’s license from my home state. My driver’s license is accepted in all other states, why would any state not accept my carry license when my carry license was harder to get than my driver’s license. You do not go through a criminal background check to get a driver’s license but for the carry licenses you do. Yet it is not honored in a uniform, mandatory or agreed upon way. It creates a patchwork quilt of states that do recognize other states, and some do, some don’t.
Evan Nappen 30:49
Before you travel, you have to know all your reciprocity across the board. Unfortunately, states like New Jersey, recognize no other states’ carry license. None. Because New Jersey’s is obviously so superior and so far ahead of everybody, and just so wonderful. There could not possibly be another license that Page – 7 – of 7
they would recognize, right? What happens if you don’t know this? If you come into Jersey with a firearm that you believe you are licensed for, think you’re 100% good, you are a law-abiding person, and you get stopped, and that gun is discovered? Often because when you hand over your driver’s license and the officer sees your carry license. Then they question you about it, and you get caught with a gun in Jersey. You are looking at 10 years in state prison with a minimum mandatory three and a half years, no chance of parole. It is incredibly serious. People who get into this trap are shocked beyond belief that New Jersey is out to ruin their lives, their careers, their hopes and dreams over a gun that they were legally licensed to have. They were doing nothing wrong. But that is how harsh, severe, and terrible Jersey is. It is a nightmare for people.
Evan Nappen 32:19
If you have firearms and are traveling, avoid New Jersey completely. Drive around it. Do not stay there. It is a trap of such serious nature, and it has caused such harm to so many otherwise law-abiding citizens. It’s disgusting, and I am not being extreme when I tell you stay in Pennsylvania. Do not stay in New Jersey and be unbelievably careful. Try to avoid it in any way you can if you are a gun owner. There is no gun law in New Jersey, not one, that is not a felony level offense. We are talking about a state where possession of a slingshot is a felony level offense. If you get convicted of any charge, even if you do not go to jail or prison, and you just pay a fine, you are now a prohibited person under federal law, and you have lost your gun rights for the entire United States. So, beware. LEOSA is on the books, and it is an important law. But be extra careful, even if you are covered by LEOSA, in coming to New Jersey, and trying to rely on these preemptions. Ultimately you may be successful, but you are still going to be arrested, and we are still going to have a fight.
Evan Nappen 34:05
I recently had it with armored security guards that were transporting lawfully, armored security. They had their carry licenses, and they still faced charges, even though the federal law is crystal clear about them being preempted. Remember these preemptions are a defense. You are going to have to show it and prove it. It is something you need to be very much aware of. I hope all our officers and retired officers can stay safe and protect themselves, but I also want to see the day when individuals, honest citizens, can defend themselves and have the ability and the means to protect themselves anywhere in the United States just like the Second Amendment intended. As we get closer to that Supreme Court decision being decided in New York, we may and hopefully will see that day dawn on America, and what a great day it will be. Until next time, folks, remember, gun laws do not protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens.
Speaker 3 35:24
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.