Gun Lawyer

  Episode 283-Fighting the Gun Records Cover-up Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 11 Gun Lawyer — Episode 283 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Gun lawyer, John Petrolino, Citizens Committee, New Jersey, carry permits, African American applicants, retired police officers, freedom of information, institutionalized racism, constitutional carry, national reciprocity, Second Amendment, anti-knife movement, UK gun laws, knife control. SPEAKERS Speaker 2, Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen Evan Nappen 00:16 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:18 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:20 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, we are currently watching with great expectation here over a lawsuit that has been brought and filed by our good friend John Petrolino with the help and assistance of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. (ccrkba.org) And what is going on here is very interesting, because John, who many of you know, does excellent reporting on firearm issues, particularly on New Jersey as well. He does great extensive coverage. Well, John was instrumental in having the permit to carry statistics getting publicized and put out there. And with it being put into the ether and made part of an awareness that otherwise really wasn’t there about the key discovery he made regarding blacks, black carry applicants. African American applicants are denied more than double their white counterparts for non-criminal reasons. Okay? Evan Nappen 01:55 And John, he requested the records seeking the statistics on retired police officer carry permits to build on the coverage of all as to who has been denied. So, remember retired police officers in New Jersey can get the RLEO, the Retired Law Enforcement Officer, Card, which in effect functions as a carry permit for retired law enforcement. Prior to the Bruen decision, where it was virtually impossible for folks to get carries, Retired Officers through the RLEO were able to get their carry in that manner. Now, of course, there’s been even more progress where LEOSA (Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act) also covers law enforcement and actually covers New Jersey law enforcement, which to large degree makes even needing a retired law enforcement carry not as necessary as it used to be. But still, it is something that is done, that is issued. Page – 2 – of 11 Evan Nappen 03:14 John requested through, you know, essentially New Jersey’s freedom of information to get the records so that we can continue the further analysis. And what I have here is a news release from Citizens Committee. (https://ccrkba.org/ccrkba-director-sues-nj-officials-over-denied-records-requests/) And what it says, as noted in the complaint, “Plaintiff and the public has a strong interest in ascertaining the relationship between the demographics of carry permit holders amongst the general public and retired law enforcement officers including but not limited to county location, race, sex and the effect of potentially disqualifying criteria in the application population as well as the success rate for the appeal process within the New Jersey State Police.” “Having established Petrolino was deprived of his common law right of access the New Jersey Civil Rights Act was violated, the clear remedy is injunctive relief compelling the production of the records to Petrolino . . .” It continues, “The NJSP”, meaning New Jersey State Police, “has denied countless records requests that I’ve made over the years, never fulfilling even one”, Director Petrolino said. “When I emailed them about these denials, an unnamed person at NJSP basically told me to sue them — so here we are.” Evan Nappen 04:46 That’s right. And as further noted in the news release, “Records concerning the retired police officer permits are about as public as you can get,” says Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “Do they have the same level of perceived bias in their permitting statistics? Or perhaps worse yet, do they not? The public has a right to know this information. We laud Director Petrolino in his quest to hold New Jersey officials accountable by forcing them to be transparent with those they swore to serve.” Yes, it is very important that these records get out there, because the current records already show the institutionalized racism that occurs in carry permitting systems. That alone should stand for why we should have Constitutional Carry in New Jersey, where you do not need any permit, as do the majority of the United States. They have no permit required, and it is something that is not necessary, nor in full exercise of the Second Amendment. We should not even be required to need a permission slip. And this illustrates the reasons why. Because the surest way to avoid the racial discrimination, to avoid these type of coverups over record

  Episode 282-Court Tosses Polatov Cocktail on Gun Law Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Gun Lawyer Transcript – Episode 282 SUMMARY KEYWORDS Polytoph case, gun rights, New Jersey gun law, firearms purchaser identification card, second amendment, public health, safety, welfare, Bruen decision, essential character of temperament, weasel clause, gun denial, federal case law, voluntary registration, gun lawyer. SPEAKERS Speaker 2, Robert Bell, Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen Evan Nappen 00:17 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:19 And I’m Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen 00:21 And welcome to Gun Lawyer with a very exciting show today, because we are going to learn about Pearl Harbor. No, it’s all about a different issue. What we are learning about, though, is a great case that just came down from the Appellate Division that my firm was fighting for our client here. It is a really amazing case that is a published decision, and this is very important to understand. In New Jersey, when a decision is deemed published, it means it is law. It acts as law. And the great attorney who argued this case for the firm, and did, in fact, do the appeal as well, is Robert Bell. Rob, welcome to Gun Lawyer. Robert Bell 01:23 Thank you. Great to be here. Evan Nappen 01:25 All right, man. So, we’re all very excited about the (Mikhail) Polatov case, and that’s why we’re saying that the “Court Tossed a Polatov Cocktail on New Jersey Gun Law”. Because this case, which is a great win, actually had some very, very important impacts on our gun rights and in future fights in the courts over gun laws. Why don’t you tell us about this case, Rob, and where we’re at and what’s happened. Go right ahead. Robert Bell 02:03 Certainly. So, Mikhail’s journey in trying to exercise his Second Amendment rights started back in 2020. He applied for a Firearms Purchaser Identification Card and was denied. Not on the basis of any convictions, restraining orders, substance abuse, or anything like that. Nothing objective. Just a 2011 misdemeanor charge that was dismissed and something back in 2002. So, it’s all very remote, and neither of them resulted in convictions, anyway. He gets denied, and he appeals it. He gets in front of our favorite Bergen County judge. I don’t need to say his name, but you can look into the record and find it yourself. Robert Bell 02:51 Don’t worry. He listens to the show. So, it’s okay. Robert Bell 02:56 So, he gets in front of this judge, and he testifies about what happened in 2011 in New York during this incident that was dismissed. And it’s not that the Judge disliked the behavior. He just disliked his “cavalier attitude about it” and denied the permit. Fast forward to 2023. Mikhail applies again, and this time his wife applies as well. Both denied. Simply on the basis of a previous denial. They appeal it. They deny the wife simply because she lives with him, and they deny him because he was dishonest with us before. And if he’s telling the truth now, it means he was either lying then or lying now. It doesn’t matter. It was just a catch 22 of you lied at some point, and I don’t like that. You are not of the essential character of temperament necessary to be entrusted with a firearm. And that’s that, that was the, the addition to the weasel clause that I think our viewers know, right? Evan Nappen 04:11 So, let’s do, let’s explain a little bit. The disqualifiers that exist in the gun laws under (Chapter) 58. There’s a list of what we often call the per se disqualifiers, where somebody like if you’re a convicted felon, it’s a per se disqualifier. And virtually everybody knows that. But New Jersey has this catch-all, the all-inclusive miscellaneous weasel clause that we refer to as “public health, safety, and welfare”. And that provision, that basis for denial is the area where we see the most significant abuse, particularly racist abuse. Where there’s a disproportionate denial of blacks by more than two and a half times to whites. It is the section of the law that is fraught with abuse on stopping the individual from being able to get licensed. The law was changed in New Jersey from just “public health, safety, and welfare”, but adding the phrase about “based on character of temperament”. Well, Rob, why did they add that? Why don’t you tell listeners why? You know the history. Why was that put in there? Robert Bell 05:26 In June 2022, when the (United States) Supreme Court issued the Bruen decision, the anti-gun states, the gun the rights oppressors in New Jersey, New York, California, Maryland, and Massachusetts, were absolutely seething. And they have been going on a temper tantrum ever since. In December 2022, they decided to pass that temper tantrum into legislation that

  Episode 281-Don’t be a Dingus about the Dingus Law Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 12 Gun Lawyer — Episode 281 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS New Jersey gun law, accidental discharge, Fifth Amendment rights, criminal charges, licensing revocation, public health safety, misdemeanor offense, felony conviction, reckless conduct, gun safety, legal advice, jury trial, Second Amendment rights, gun ownership, legal protections. SPEAKERS Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen, Speaker 2 Evan Nappen 00:16 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:17 And I’m Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen 00:19 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. Say, Teddy, I see you sent me something interesting that you found online. Teddy Nappen 00:26 Well, I always like to check on the Reddit retards to see what they’re saying. Evan Nappen 00:32 Oh, my God. And yeah, you did find some stuff that is very much of concern here, because I don’t want to see any of our people have a problem or get into trouble. And it made it clear to me just how important this Accidental Discharge (AD), the Dingus Law, in New Jersey, is. It is having a tremendous effect, and folks have got to know about it. They’ve got to understand that this is genuine. Teddy Nappen 00:59 And also to be clear, not everyone on Reddit is retarded, but everyone who’s retarded is on Reddit just saying. Evan Nappen 01:06 Ah, okay. Well, I’m glad to know the rules here. But what I want to do is go through the commentary to a certain degree. It is extremely important that individuals don’t make this mistake, because this change is dramatic to New Jersey’s law. And then it instantly has put forward Fifth Amendment rights that must be utilized by gun owners in New Jersey in order to protect themselves. Because the ramifications here are not just criminal, not just potential exposure to a year and a half in State Prison for a mere accident, but also loss of your Second Amendment rights. And not just loss of your rights from becoming a Page – 2 – of 12 convicted felon. Even if criminal charges are not pursued, you’re still going to face potential licensing revocation, pulling you in under the disqualifier of public health, safety, and welfare, what I call the all-inclusive miscellaneous weasel clause that they will use to further disarm you. Evan Nappen 02:19 I’ve encountered case after case after case after case of this. I’ve been, you know, practicing New Jersey gun law now for 40 years. I’ve seen what accidental discharges cause to the individual. I’m not making this up. This is real, and it is a real concern. And they’ve just poured gasoline on the fire by passing this new law that essentially criminalizes this to a degree that it has never been criminalized before. So, our rights become even more critical, and I want to make sure that folks understand this law. So, I’m going to review it and talk about some of the misinformation and such that is out there. And how, again, the anti-Second Amendment, the gun rights oppressionists, how they have structured this law to get it through. To make it have a facial appearance, and yet its effect is hidden until it pounds you, the unsuspecting gun owner. I understand how this system works, and I’ve seen what they do. So, they pass these laws, and in effect, they’re sneaky as all hell. This is a sneaky law that is there to disenfranchise gun owners. Teddy Nappen 03:57 Also the fact that anyone who thinks, oh, this will never happen to me. Oh, I’m a very responsible gun owner. They hate you. That is why they’re laying these traps. And anyone who thinks that this can’t happen to you, tell yourself, oh, I’ve never been in a car accident before. Anyone has ever thought that until it happens. Evan Nappen 04:19 Man, I cannot tell you how many times in the practice of gun law in New Jersey, I’ve had the client say, man, I never thought I’d be calling you. I’ve heard that uncountable numbers of times. I never thought I’d be calling you. Yet here I am. And, frankly, I want the word out so people understand this, and I’m going to deal more with that very fact and the reality of that in some of the commentary that’s here, because it also deserves to be addressed. I’m going to do that. Evan Nappen 04:53 So, first, let’s take a look at the law so you can really understand what the traps are. They’re sneaky tricks. How they passed this, and they know what they’re doing. They know what they’re doing. And they fool the public and create the ability here for the oppressionists to go after the unsuspecting folks that are thinking they’re doing the right thing. So, New Jersey, as you may or may not know, has utterly criminalized accidental discharge, and it is now in law, signed by Murphy. (https://

  Episode 280-Top 7 NJ Carry Guns Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 11 Gun Lawyer — Episode 280 Transcript SPEAKERS Speaker 3, Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen Evan Nappen 00:17 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:19 and I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:21 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. Hey, Teddy, guess who finally quit smoking? Teddy Nappen 00:28 You quit smoking? Evan Nappen 00:30 No. The Ayatollah Khomeini. Teddy Nappen 00:32 Oh! Evan Nappen 00:35 There you go. Actually, the thing is, we’re now in a situation where you may have seen the warnings going out about an increased, seriously increased, threat of danger in the homeland. For the, who knows, how many that the Biden administration let in, actual terrorists on the terrorist watch list, and how many unknowns and got aways, and just all those folks that have infiltrated the country that they’re warning about sleeper cells and already starting to see some incidents occurring. And I think it’s fair to say that we all need to be very vigilant, and since most of us are folks that are armed, that carry, we become an important element in the defense of our country. Evan Nappen 01:39 So, I want to talk today about practical considerations regarding firearm carry guns in New Jersey. We want to talk about the guns that are appropriate and are really some of the top most popular carry guns in New Jersey. Now, none of this means these are guns we’re going to talk about that make it that. You know, if you choose to carry any gun that you like, that’s fine. None of this is critical of any firearm that you may be carrying. I just want to talk about ones. It was inspired to talk about this from an article I found in Breitbart. Now Breitbart’s article is the “Five Concealed Carry Guns First-Time Buyers Should Consider”. (https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2026/03/03/five-concealed-carry-guns-first-time-buyers-should-consider/) Page – 2 – of 11 Evan Nappen 02:30 and I want to. Teddy Nappen 02:32 Number one, Gyrojet pistol. Evan Nappen 02:34 Right. Definitely grab that old Gyrojet. Oh, my God. In case you don’t know what a Gyrojet is, it was, literally, a rocket firing pistol. It launched cartridges or bullets or projectiles, if you will, in a similar way that you fire rockets, not a bullet. So, it’s actually, a gyro jet gun is closer to an Iranian missile launcher, frankly, than a gun. But they were not a commercial success. They’re very collectible and fascinating. You can read more about Gyrojets online. I happen to own a Gyrojet as an example of a rocket pistol. But no, that’s not a gun I would suggest carrying in New Jersey. Evan Nappen 03:27 First of all, it’s too valuable just to carry, and the ammo is like incredibly hard to find. Each cartridge is very valuable as a collectible in and of itself. But here it is from Breitbart. Now this article is by AWR Hawkins, who’s an excellent gun writer, and as he begins the article, he says, with military action in Iran raging and concerns about staying safe stateside, we thought it would be helpful to put together a list of five concealed carry guns that first time buyers should consider. So, I’m going to, and that’s a good thought right now, what we’re dealing with. I’m going to modify from what he’s talking about, is just to carry guns in New Jersey, whether you’re first time or not a first time. There are advantages and disadvantages to a number of the firearms that they’re putting out, and we have to put in the concerns that we have in New Jersey. One of the primary concerns at the moment in New Jersey is, of course, that you can’t have a magazine that holds over 10 rounds. So, the handguns that we’re going to carry in New Jersey have to have a limitation in the magazine of 10 rounds. Now, that does not include one round in the chamber. So, in theory, you can have 10 rounds in a magazine and one round in the chamber, and you are legal in New Jersey for that carry gun. Evan Nappen 04:56 So, what happens is there are a number of handguns out there that, of course, are wonderful, wonderful guns. They are larger frame and normally hold standard magazine capacity definitely over 10 rounds. And you can start, you know, with just a Glock 19 that would have the standard magazine of 15 rounds. An excellent carry gun and super popular. But in New Jersey, putting aside, let’s just say the Glock 19 happens to fit your hand really well, and I understand that. But in reality, you’re carrying a gun that is larger than you necessarily need. Again, if it works for you, that’s fine, but it’s larger than you necessarily need, which makes it arguably somewhat less concealable. And yet you’re being limited in one of the nice features about it is that you could have the i

  Episode 279-Bang or Bong. Maybe both. Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 11 Gun Lawyer — Episode 279 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Supreme Court case, marijuana user ban, Second Amendment rights, ACLU, NRA, New Jersey, Hughes amendment, West Virginia, machine guns, loopholes, gun rights, felon restoration, Epstein files, Michael Bloomberg, gun violence prevention. SPEAKERS Speaker 2, Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen Evan Nappen 00:16 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:18 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:20 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, we have some exciting things coming in the future here. I want to make sure the listeners are well aware. In the Supreme Court, we have a case coming up that is going to look at the prohibitor for firearm possession concerning marijuana use, if you’re a user of marijuana. And the case is U.S. versus Hemani. This is very interesting, because it is widely believed that the Court is going to strike down the gun ban for marijuana users. Regardless of how you feel about marijuana use, I’m looking forward to seeing this opinion, because it may be useful in knocking down other gun disqualifiers. Because, folks, gun disqualifiers, such as the gun ban for marijuana use, is an area of exploitation by the gun rights oppressors. Evan Nappen 01:38 So, if they can’t just get a flat out gun ban through, which they try to do all the time, if they can piece meal gun bans to various classes of individuals, then they get the job done that way. That’s why you see the ever expanding list of persons who they try to get disqualified from being able to exercise their Second Amendment rights. And this case has, I believe, potentially very far reaching implications as to subverting that anti-gun rights, that gun rights oppression tactic. So, we want to look at it at as more than just the marijuana. It will be fascinating to see it be a victory, because we have parties in support of this ban going away as diverse as, on the same side now, the ACLU and the NRA. Both. The ACLU is in favor of getting rid of the marijuana user gun ban, because it is, of course, beneficial to in their view, I’m sure, legalization of marijuana, which is something that they would be in support. The NRA is in favor of it going away, because it is consistent with The NRA’s position of supporting Second Amendment rights. So, this has created the classic strange bedfellows situation. (https://www.marijuanamoment.net/aclu-attorney-confident-supreme-court-will-strike-down-gun-ban-for-marijuana-users-after-oral-arguments-next-week/ ) Page – 2 – of 11 Evan Nappen 03:28 But ultimately, what we see coming from it should be a victory for gun rights. And I believe and hope it will be even further reaching than simply addressing the marijuana question. It’s going to be, I believe, very helpful in fighting other disqualifications. Remember, New Jersey is one of the states that tries to always have an expansive list of what disqualifies a person from being able to exercise their Second Amendment rights. They love to create disenfranchisements of our rights because they are rights oppressors, and this tactic, hopefully, will be taking a hit here. So, we’ll keep you informed about the progress and what occurs under the Hemani decision. Teddy Nappen 04:30 I will say, just from the ACLU, just to be clear, they are heavily backed by the Democrat for their super PACs. I’m just saying. Like that is the, and I can’t wait to see all the individuals of the ACLU all out in mass as they’re about to help win a pro-gun victory as well. Yeah. Evan Nappen 04:55 I guess they’re looking at it more as a pro-marijuana victory and ending prejudice toward marijuana users. But whatever their motivation may be, we are going to be consistent in our support for Second Amendment rights. Getting rid of disqualifiers is getting rid of disqualifiers that are disenfranchisements to our Second Amendment rights. So, hey, at least they’re on the right side on this one, and maybe we can get them to continue to see the light on other disqualifiers. Such as restoration of rights for felons and such, right? I mean, this is something you would think they would be in favor of, as well, for restoration of rights. You paid your dues. You served your time. And if you’re not a violent felon, why are you disenfranchised of your rights? I mean, even violent felons, when you get right down to it. I mean, there’s, I missed that in the Second Amendment, where it says we have a right to keep and bear arms, unless you’re a felon, you know, or any of these exemptions. They aren’t there. So, to what degree we tolerate them, to what degree we may think they’re even valuable, I don’t know, but we need to. I’d rather be seeing us pull back on every type of ban and maximize

  Episode 278-Don’t Let Them Memory Hole Us Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Mass shooting, Canada, gun laws, mental health, firearm license, self-defense, transgender, mandatory buyback, gun control, observational awareness, situational awareness, gun rights, New Jersey, firearm industry, de-banking. SPEAKERS Teddy Nappen, Speaker 2 Teddy Nappen 00:17 I’m Teddy Nappen, and welcome to Gun Lawyer. I wanted to kind of address this to the audience, as this has been kind of brushed over. There’s been multiple mass shootings, but there was one that caught my eye. They are trying to effectively bury in the stories. Like, I don’t even see it that much coming the news. The mass shooting in Canada! Every single one of the Left’s arguments on how to stop a mass shooting, everything that they push for, demonstrated in Canada failed. The Left always argues that stricter gun laws will prevent a mass shooting. If it saves one life. Even though 2.7 million lives are saved with self-defense uses of a firearm. If it saves one life. They always argue the accessibility of firearms – that’s what leads to mass shootings. Teddy Nappen 01:15 So, I want to kind of lean into this story where nine people were shot and killed, 27 were injured in the mass shooting in Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia. (https://www.junonews.com/p/exclusive-family-confirms-identity) It was a man identifying as a woman, which, you know, that’s one of the other reasons why they’re burying the story. It doesn’t fit the narrative of the straight, white, right wing conservative as the shooter. So, obviously we can’t talk about it. You hear from the North District Commander Ken Floyd of the gun person. Yeah, person. Always good to not misgender the school shooter. He murdered his mother, but also shot his step brother as well. Don’t bring up that fact. Also, a troubled house life, and the school that he shot up, of course, he was thrown out of the school. Police had been called to the home multiple times. They had multiple instances with this individual who had reported mental health problems. Huh, interesting. Teddy Nappen 02:21 Oh, and it gets better. So, the suspect had a firearm license, which, by the way, in Canada, you cannot possess a firearm for self-defense – only hunting. Keep that in mind. Supposedly, the guns recovered were a long gun and a “modified handgun”. They don’t go into details as to what was modified. So, the suspect, the shooter, the man identifying as a woman, I’m going to repeat that, the suspect had dropped out of the Tumbler Ridge Secondary School four years ago and was not a student at the time. So, police had attended the suspect’s residence multiple times in the past several years, dealing with mental health occurrences. Hmm, wonder why? When he started identifying as a woman? You know, that usually leads to that 42% suicide rate. The only group that is close to that rate is paranoid schizophrenics. But you know, facts are transphobic and homophobic, apparently. This included one of the attendants where, two years ago, the firearms were seized under criminal code. He was Red Flagged! Oh, he had multiple mental health instances. So, obviously we’ve got to seize his guns. The very argument by the Left to stop mass shootings. But, of course, because the man identified as a woman, then of course, well, we can’t, we don’t want to be transphobic. Let’s give him, oh, sorry, her back his firearms. Teddy Nappen 03:53 And, of course, suspect was born a biological male and then started transitioning six years ago. So, six years ago, he started transitioning and identified as a woman. Two years ago, the firearms are seized, so then he can say, oh, sorry, I think I’m a woman, so give me back my firearms, even though the police have come multiple times for multiple mental health incidents. Other than that, though, let’s give him back his guns. So, right there we have a clear demonstration of the fact that his firearms were seized and then he got, you know, Red Flagged. They actually have it. I pulled the law under their Public Safety website emergency prohibition order. (https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/cntrng-crm/frrms/rd-flg-lws-en.aspx) A judge issues the order if they believe the individual poses a risk to themselves or others. When the order was issued, firearms, and firearm license and other documents and other weapons may be removed up to 30 days, and you have a hearing date. He goes to the hearing date and says, I want my guns back. And here they are given back and then does the shooting. The level. It’s just so disgusting. The system works every time. He got the guns back, and then boom, goes right into a mass shooting. Teddy Nappen 05:12 By the way, Canada is one of the most strictest places you could find for a f

  Episode 277-Three-Round Burst of GOFU’s Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 11 Gun Lawyer — Episode 277 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS GOFUs, New Jersey gun laws, vampire rule, sensitive places, unlawful possession, pretrial detention, federal injunction, carry permit, gun transport, Second Amendment, gun rights, legal advice, gun ownership, gun regulations, gun safety, gun culture. SPEAKERS Speaker 2, Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen Evan Nappen 00:17 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:19 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:21 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, you know our show here, one of the things that is very, very famous about our show are GOFUs. And GOFUs, as my listeners know, are Gun Owner Fuck Ups. The idea with GOFUs is these are real cases, actual things that happened. They are expensive lessons that people learn, and that you, the listener, get to learn for free. And of course, we always do the GOFU at the end of the show, whatever this week’s GOFU may be. But suddenly I’ve been pounded with GOFUs, and they’re very important. And I said, you know what? We’re going to do a three round burst here of some really important GOFUs, including what I want to begin with by telling you about this actual case. It illustrates just how insane New Jersey is and what every law-abiding gun owner could, in fact, face. Evan Nappen 01:32 Of course, I’m not using any names, but this is an actual situation that occurred. And some things, looking at the situation that the, and not just necessarily a mistake that the gun owner did, but something that hit me as extremely important for every New Jersey gun owner to make sure they do. There’s a very simple thing that is very important that could be critical between whether or not they hold you in jail or release you. We’re going to get to that from this story so you’ll learn this secret, so that you don’t end up in this GOFU situation. Spending days or weeks incarcerated for nothing, because that’s what the Gulag does, as you know. This is a case that wraps it all up into that. Evan Nappen 02:39 So, here’s this guy who comes into New Jersey, and he’s at a mall. Now, as you may know, the mall is not, in and of itself, a sensitive place, right? Those of us who have familiarized ourself, which hopefully all of you have, with these “sensitive places”. A mall is not, per se, a sensitive place. Now, there can be rules regarding malls where they say, hey, no guns in the mall. We don’t want guns, you know. And any Page – 2 – of 11 private property, whether open to the public or not, can have a prohibition privately saying we don’t want any guns here. In the same way they could say, we don’t want any dogs. We don’t want any bare feet. You know, things like that. The property owner has certain control. But if there is such a sign, if there is such a statement by a property owner, then if you come on to that property and they don’t want you on that property for a reason such as that. They can’t say, hey, we don’t allow minorities on our property. You know, they can’t. You can’t have racial discrimination in a place open to the public. But you can have other restrictions. Evan Nappen 04:07 Now, I happen to personally think that firearms should be viewed as a civil right and in the same category as discrimination, because it is a civil right. But that’s not currently how the law is. So, if a private entity prohibits gun, says no guns, then if you still go on that property and you’re specifically told to leave and don’t, then you’re what’s known as a defiant trespasser. So, what we’re talking about is trespassing, but trespassing is not a sensitive place violation. Sensitive place violations are specific gun law violations that create a certain place that becomes a prohibited area under the law to carry a gun, even if you have a permit to carry. So, this person is in the mall and apparently gets approached by mall security, who has allegedly dogs that can sniff gunpowder. Believe it or not, they’re out there. Apparently, he’s approached and they say, we think you have a gun. Please leave. And he does. No problem. He was asked to leave, and he leaves. Evan Nappen 05:30 After leaving, while in his car, driving, he gets stopped by police. More than even one because, oh, there’s a gun, right? Because, obviously, security called it in, I guess, at some point, and he was stopped. He is stopped for violating, in their minds, the sensitive place prohibition under Section 24 under Chapter 58 of the sensitive places. And what is that? What is that sensitive place that they believe he’s in violation of? Oh, New Jersey’s version of the vampire rule. The vampire rule is that you need permissio