Episode 282-Court Tosses Polatov Cocktail on Gun Law

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 was signed by the governor immediately. And it added “. . . the essential character of temperament necessary to be entrusted with a firearm.” Where they found that was in footnote one of the Bruen opinion. Footnote one of the Bruen opinion explains the laws of multiple states, including that of Connecticut, and they quoted a case called Dwyer versus Farrell. Now, Dwyer versus Farrell is a Connecticut case about the firearms laws.

Robert Bell  06:16

However, the Supreme Court quoted Dwyer versus Farrell, and they had a phrase in it, essential character of temperament, necessary to be entrusted with a firearm. However, the Supreme Court of the United States unfortunately has a typo in that footnote. It actually reads “character or temperament”. So, we know exactly what they were doing. They were just combing that decision, looking for anything and everything to keep this unctuous statute going for as long as they possibly can so that they can continue oppressing gun rights. So, now we have a phrase in the weasel clause that is a result of the legislature copying somebody else’s homework and passing it off as a sensible phrase, because it makes no sense.

Evan Nappen  07:05

And now it’s actually. But Rob, now it’s actually had the opposite effect of what they intended. Because in this case law, it creates a limitation, as expressed in Polatov, as to what that actually means, right?

Robert Bell  07:24

Correct. They actually have spoken up on what that means, and it’s in part because I pointed out where it came from. I think.

Evan Nappen  07:32

I think you’re right. No, absolutely, it’s why. And now what is that phrase now mean in New Jersey, as it applies to the entire weasel clause now, right? Because it modifies the whole weasel clause. What is the standard that has now been determined by Polatov? By that case.

Robert Bell  07:53

They seem to have rejected my original argument that it requires repetitive misconduct. But then they go on to say, “character of temperament” means the basic defining qualities of a person’s emotional response. And to lack the basic qualities of one’s emotional response means to have no stable or consistent emotional core necessary for responsible action. In other words, to be so volatile that armament would endanger the interest of the public health, safety or welfare. I don’t know how you prove that someone’s volatile without pointing to multiple instance of misconduct, but.

Evan Nappen  08:30

But they are basing that, very importantly, on Koons v. Platkin, correct?

Robert Bell  08:40

Correct.

Evan Nappen  08:40

Now, what is the quote that the Court relies upon, which is extremely significant, because now we have, for the first time, a New Jersey appellate case law getting published utilizing the federal win, the federal law in our favor, and now that becomes part of New Jersey state law fighting, right? It’s very significant. It bridges the state to the federal. What did they do, Rob? What did they do?

Robert Bell  09:16

They quoted Koons v Platkin when they said that the weasel clause must focus on whether the applicant armed with a firearm poses a danger to the public. So, we’re running in circles with vague rules.

Evan Nappen  09:31

But now we have the standard of the violence and danger to public. We’ve seen many times in the denial that it has nothing. They put forward nothing to do with violence or danger that they don’t ever deny, as this case illustrates. What did the judge deny him for? Nothing having to do with violence?

Robert Bell  09:57

Credibility.

Evan Nappen  09:59

Right!

Robert Bell  09:59

Credibility.

Evan Nappen  10:00

Which is not a basis. And so, this is going to have the effect of cutting down a lot of the wrongful denials that we’ve encountered, that we’ve seen.

Robert Bell  10:13

It’s certainly something we can use to smack back them.

Evan Nappen  10:16

Yes. Now, we want to see it go further, of course, and to finally be taken out as utterly and completely unconstitutional to even have this type of disqualifier in the gun laws. But what has been accomplished here, with the Polatov case, is incorporating the federal wins in gun law, the federal case law into state law, and establishing a more narrowing. It narrows more the “public health, safety, or welfare” disqualifier than we had prior to the law being changed.

Robert Bell  11:04

Oh, yes, because now it has to focus on the applicant. People used to get denied permits for individuals who live in their house with them. If they were a convicted felon, if they were under a restraining order, if they had been involuntarily committed, something like that.

Evan Nappen  11:18

Right! And that is a classic that we see going on all the time in New Jersey with an innocent third party. They attempt to disarm the innocent third party because of some other party in the household who is otherwise disqualified.

Teddy Nappen  11:37

Didn’t they just pass that law, too? Where they’re now, like doing what are they trying to know like now hold or the household background check?

Evan Nappen  11:45

What I’m talking about here, and I think Rob knows. When we enter into these cases where it’s an innocent third party who’s being denied their gun rights or have had their guns seized because, say, somebody else in the household gets a restraining order against them.

Robert Bell  12:04

Correct. Vicarious, vicarious disability, I guess you could call it.

Evan Nappen  12:08

Right! And then they abuse the case where a person said, oh yeah, I’ve let the disqualified person have the gun, you know? And suddenly that makes everybody in a household is disqualified. And so, this is going to help to end that practice, and help end those arguments of becoming disenfranchised of your gun rights because somebody else in your household is disqualified. Because it doesn’t make you, the individual, have a character or temperament problem.

Robert Bell  12:47

Correct! And it doesn’t even sound like the legislature knew that what they were doing there. They just had a temper tantrum, and they limited something that they liked to use

Evan Nappen  12:57

Oh, yeah! Absolutely.

Teddy Nappen  12:58

Rob, I just have a question regarding, I was reading through the case, just the background of like, what they were highlighting, where it was the they thought he “lied” about it. But I just didn’t understand about his history, the criminal history of the charge, of why they were denying him. It just seemed like it was a complete misunderstanding of the question when they were asking. Did he have, like, the history? Because I was reading through the transcript that was in the decision, and it just seemed like they were confused, like it just seemed.

Robert Bell  13:29

Yes, at least in that first hearing, that I did not represent him in. It seems that way. It just seems like he said, whatever. And also I don’t, I don’t know that it’s in the transcript, but that was on Zoom. That was.

Teddy Nappen  13:44

Oh, even better.

Robert Bell  13:45

Yeah, so that hearing was on Zoom.

Evan Nappen  13:47

And wasn’t both licensing hearings in front of the same Bergen County judge?

Robert Bell  13:54

And that was a beautiful point. I like to tap myself on the back for that. I said the same judge and the cops have gotten in the way of this man arming himself for five years.

Evan Nappen  14:05

And I would like to point out to folks, if they want to actually read this decision, we’re going to have the link. (https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2026/a3720-23.pdf) There’s a transcription of the colloquy of the first hearing between the judge and the client. I think it illustrates what goes on in that court. Because when you read that, keep in mind the questioning you see going on there isn’t being done by the prosecutor. It’s being done by the Court, who is aggressively interrogating the applicant. Read it for yourself. You can see what goes on in that court when it comes to a Judge, who you want to be a neutral judicial authority, but he takes on the role of a cross examiner. It’s very interesting. It gives you a taste of what goes on there and what our client went through. You read it for yourself, folks.

Robert Bell  15:11

Twice.

Teddy Nappen  15:11

Now, multiply that times 1000 and that’s almost every gun case for New Jersey. Where you know it’s a prosecutor, a judge who you know, a political appointee who has a bias and wants to take away our rights.

Evan Nappen  15:25

Well, we don’t know. Why? Why else? What is going on? Maybe, maybe not. I don’t know. Is it just simply pursuing an agenda? Is it simply a rule that is now become something where the issuing authority is, is in  prepositioned here to be aggressively questioning on the side of the Government of taking rights and not the role of protecting rights, of expanding rights, of being the one who ensures the protection of individual rights, but rather the one pushing hard on whether to take rights! That’s what you can you can argue and reflect upon.

Teddy Nappen  16:13

Well, I think it comes back to just look at the Bruen decision with the dissent from Jackson. What was her view of our rights? When you consider the Second Amendment, you have to consider the issues of gun violence and threats to the community and everything else, but not actually looking at the law. That is the mindset of these people. They always bring in that bias, every single time. You see it from reading that transcript.

Evan Nappen  16:40

From Jackson and see. You know, these are what when we talk about individual rights, they’re supposed to be a guarantee of our individual rights, and that guarantee is not voided by way of all these other political arguments. Okay? That’s not how it’s supposed to work.

Teddy Nappen  17:03

You also have the, I always think of the line from “The Untouchables”, you know, where the guy says, “let’s do some good”. Like, that’s the mindset. They think like this. Oh, man, you’re doing such a service in denying this, this poor guy who literally is, like, what was he? He was Russian born and was in the Polish military.

Robert Bell  17:23

And he knew how to handle a firearm.

Teddy Nappen  17:25

Knew how to handle a firearm. Did all this history. Comes here and gets a full degree, family, everything. And he gets denied because “I don’t like guns”. Well, it’s disgusting.

Evan Nappen  17:36

It’s a constant battle that we undergo. And speaking of that battle, one of the key fighters for our rights is the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs. They are the state gun rights group. They are the umbrella organization for the NRA. They’re multiple gun clubs that all belong in the Association. They have a full-time paid lobbyist down in Trenton keep an eye on the shenanigans going on there. Plus they’re fighting in the courts. I mean, Koons versus Platkin. Guess what? Association is on that case. And these are the important things that are this great organization is doing. You need to be a member of anjrpc.org That’s the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs. Make sure you join. Make sure you’re part of the solution.

Evan Nappen  18:32

I also want to talk about our really good friends at WeShoot. WeShoot is a range in Lakewood. We’ve all shot. Rob, you’ve shot at WeShoot as well.

Robert Bell  18:43

Correct you are.

Evan Nappen  18:43

And so has Teddy. Yep. And we love WeShoot. That is the range. it is right there in Lakewood, conveniently off the Parkway. You can have access to a fantastic resource for being able to shoot right there. They have great training and a great pro shop. That’s where we got our CCARE certificates for getting our carries, and you can get yours there as well. And get all kinds of training – both advanced and novice. Make sure that you check out WeShoot and the WeShoot website, which is at weshootusa.com. You can see the famous WeShoot photography and the WeShoot girls. They have a lot of fantastic deals on firearms that they’re running. You’ll love it. Everyone loves WeShoot. Go there and have a great day at the range.

Evan Nappen  19:43

And let me also take a moment to shamelessly promote my book, which is New Jersey Gun Law. It is the Bible of Jersey gun law. It’s a book used by, well, everybody that wants to know about New Jersey gun law. You need to get your copy. Go to EvanNappen.com and order a copy today. It will help you get through the matrix of insanity called New Jersey gun laws and hopefully not become a GOFU, which is always a challenge in the Democratic People’s Republic of New Jersey. So, Teddy, what do you have today for us in Press Checks?

Teddy Nappen  20:23

Well, as you know, Press Checks are always free, and I always make it a point. And everyone who has been listening on the show knows I always want to do opposition research. What are they talking about? What is the argument? And you know, our good friends at The Trace. They always keep us abreast on whatever, you know, with their little message and propaganda. And there’s been this huge push where they’re trying to, like, you know, push Trump out and say, oh, he’s anti-gun. He’s hurting gun owners. They always try to make this argument that he’s anti-gun. They go on this Trump deranged rant, but they’re an anti-gun outlet. So, they would be praising Trump for this, but they still go after him. It’s very confusing. And it’s just the, it’s because whenever it comes,

Evan Nappen  21:11

They’re schizophrenic, man!

Teddy Nappen  21:12

Well, no, it’s the issue of the fact, you always have to remember these people are Marxists. And when it comes to Marxists, it doesn’t matter about standards or beliefs. It’s about defeating the opposition. They don’t care what position they have to take, so long as they defeat their opponent. That’s how you end up with, you know, where you end up with crazies. Where they have, like, the groups of the Left trying to join, you know, “Free Maduro” and “Free Iran”. Like, that level of insanity. So, their latest article from this guy by the name of Champe Barton. I don’t care. “Trump’s Tariffs Are Driving Up Ammo Prices”. (https://www.thetrace.org/2026/03/trump-tariffs-ammunition-prices/) This is something they’ve been pushing for for the longest time.

Evan Nappen  22:01

So, they should be totally in favor of tariffs then, because it helps promote their anti-gun agenda, right?

Teddy Nappen  22:08

Oh, that would be the argument, but they’re like. Iinstead, it’s just this whole the pro-gun President is hurting gun owners. And they go on this whole stupid thing, like pro-gun President squeezing the ammo industry. Gun owners, bullets, all the humanity, like it’s the level of like they try like the turbulence has arrived. Trump has billed himself the most pro-gun president ever. Yet steeping tariffs in metals and chemicals used to make ammunition is ratcheting up the prices and costs for ammunition. And according to the Ammunition Depot, the average daily price of nine millimeter full jacket, as widely used by the caliber of the market, has ticked up steadily. In January, it’s twice topped 35 cents, the highest level since 2023. About 10 cents more than the average price during 2025. So, I love the game. They always like try to quote, oh, this is a respective source. So you know what? I actually went to the Ammo Depot. I actually went to their sources. And let’s give a little history. So, in December 2020, full metal jacket was of

Evan Nappen  23:28

Nine millimeter, full metal jacket?

Teddy Nappen  23:30

Full Metal Jacket, 1000 rounds was about 180 prior to 2020. Then it jumped to like 600 to 700 dollars per you know, per 1000. You remember that 2020 days?

Evan Nappen  23:34

I remember.

Teddy Nappen  23:44

Those golden bricks. They were selling.

Evan Nappen  23:46

Crazy prices.

Robert Bell  23:47

Gaslighting.

Teddy Nappen  23:48

Yeah, oh, yeah. And then cut to February 2021, and the prices was like 70 cents, a round, 90 cents around. And then 2023 to 2024, things finally started to calm down once the end of Covid, where it was 20 cents and it was 27 cents. Then it was 23 cents. Just hovering around that number. And then 2025 it’s at around 21 cents to 24 cents. And of November, 2025 it dropped to 20 cents. I went to the prices index. Went right to the index, it hovers around 12 cents per round to 30 cents per round. So, what the heck are they talking about? This whole stupidity of an argument which, by the way, the experts are still trying to figure out, where’s all this inflation? I mean, we’ve been saying tariffs are inflationary, but none of the inflation has hit.

Evan Nappen  24:42

That’s because a lot of the manufacturing has just absorbed it in a cost-of-doing business, and competition has made it so it did not skyrocket.

Teddy Nappen  24:51

Yeah. Also, we are the largest producer of lead ore. We exported 864 million of ore. Know how much we imported?

Evan Nappen  25:01

Ooooh, and a lot of that lead comes out of the front of a barrel of a little gun, right?

Teddy Nappen  25:07

I know, right?

Evan Nappen  25:08

Exporting it all around. It’s great.

Teddy Nappen  25:08

I know. We, you know, it’s good. You know what? We should export more to Iran.

Evan Nappen  25:15

We are really exporting a lot of lead to Iran.

Teddy Nappen  25:20

I know, right? But then I even pulled up. I always do this. I like citing Left-leaning sources to prove they’re against their argument. MSN, they brought on expert. You have to understand. Step one, tariffs on imports do raise the price on imports, but you have to remember U.S. experts earn the withdrawal by buying imports from other countries. So, if you have a tax on imports, it’s exactly the same on a tax of exports. That’s called linear symmetry theorem, exactly the same. And therefore what happens is, all the exported goods and services, their prices will fall. So, the increase of price imports is matched by the fall of price. So, it comes down to net zero. That’s their whole argument. That’s their whole long winded claim of like this is the reason. Instead of just admitting tariffs are non-inflationary and just accepting that reality. Because if you look to the price all the time.

Evan Nappen  26:16

Let’s step back and look how they’re trying to twist that into somehow Trump is hurting the Second Amendment, or something. Like, first of all, they would be rejoicing if, in fact, he was hurting it. So, why are they putting it out that it’s in any way a problem? Instead they’re trying to just convince what? A MAGA base of some sort that he’s betraying them or something. The politics of that is just bizarro for The Trace, otherwise they should just praise it. In other words, they’re in favor of it.

Teddy Nappen  26:49

Dad.

Evan Nappen  26:49

What?

Teddy Nappen  26:49

Well, this is the trick. Cut to the Germans in World War Two. You’re already lost. Your allies have abandoned you. You are losing men and materials. Your tariffs are causing inflation.

Evan Nappen  27:03

Right! Exactly.

Teddy Nappen  27:04

This is their game, where they’re trying to break up MAGA in that idea.

Evan Nappen  27:08

Right!

Teddy Nappen  27:10

Whereas that’s why you have all the black pillars, you have all these stupid people trying to make propaganda, yeah, and that’s the truth, and that’s why you push all these lies. And, you know. Just cut to Harry Entonces, the golden retriever of CNN – MAGA support, 100% on the GOP.

Evan Nappen  27:30

Yeah, 100!

Teddy Nappen  27:32

That’s, I thought like, he’s making that up. There’s no way. But it’s CNN, like they already undervalue it. So, at this point it’d be 110% for Trump, because it’s that level of.

Evan Nappen  27:43

Right!

Teddy Nappen  27:43

It’s so stupid. So, this psyop, they try to do a breaking up Trump from the gun owners, breaking up MAGA. This is all lies. And I have the articles here from that. From the Ore World, from showing the levels of production. It’s all lies, factual inaccuracies.

Evan Nappen  28:05

Well, I appreciate you pointing that out. I’m sure the listeners do as well. And Rob, what a great job and what a fight you had all through. From the trial level through the appellate level, but victory is yours! Because it is not just a win on the appeal, but it is a published case that actually establishes law for New Jersey and even brings in now the federal case law. It’s quite an accomplishment. It’s really great.

Robert Bell  28:40

Thank you!

Evan Nappen  28:40

And I want to want to tell you that at the end of the show, we always do the GOFU, which is the Gun Owner Fuck Up. We try to educate our folks about not making mistakes that we’ve seen others make in our practice. They’re expensive mistakes, and they can learn here for free not to do them. So this week’s GOFU, I want to ask you, Rob. Based on anything you’ve been dealing with or observing as any kind of GOFU that you’d like to let our listeners know about for this week?

Robert Bell  29:18

Sure thing. But before I do, I forgot to mention that in the Polotov case, the judge and prosecutor are absolutely seething.

Evan Nappen  29:26

Oh, really? Wait, what is that? Why is that?

Robert Bell  29:29

Well, I very triumphantly emailed an order to the Court and ccd the prosecutor who originally was on this case.

Evan Nappen  29:42

And wait, wait. An order for what?

Robert Bell  29:44

Granting the permit!

Evan Nappen  29:46

Well, let’s explain why. Because the Court in the appellate decision ordered, not just reversing the decision of the lower court, but ordered the issuance of the Firearms Purchaser ID Card. So, you sent the Court order to the trial court saying, here do this order, reversing denial and ordering the issuance of the of the FID card, as the appellate court has so stated, right?

Robert Bell  30:16

Correct!

Evan Nappen  30:17

So, you did that, right? And what happened?

Robert Bell  30:19

Yes, and the Bergen County prosecutors, there were two of them on the email said, oh, please hold off on that. We need to, we need to. We need to talk about this. We need to confer to see if we’re going to appeal or file a stay. So, they’re running scared.

Evan Nappen  30:37

For reconsideration or something? Do they actually think they could get a reconsideration of an appellate case that the Appellate Division chose to make published?

Robert Bell  30:49

Let’em try.

Teddy Nappen  30:50

When it comes.

Evan Nappen  30:51

Oh, boy.

Teddy Nappen  30:52

When it comes to guns, they’ll always make an exception for us.

Evan Nappen  30:57

Well, I don’t know why, but they’re taking it, they’re not taking it very well, huh? From what you’re saying.

Robert Bell  31:05

I would say that what they’re doing may be a GTFU – a Gun Tyrant Fuck Up. Which brings us to the GOFU.

Evan Nappen  31:15

Well, that does. And wait one second. You know anybody who’s had their firearm license, FID Card denied, this may now present the opportunity to go back. And if you were denied and if it wasn’t based on a criteria that would now fit in the violence area, right? If it was “public health, safety, or welfare” denial of old that this opens a door for you to at least put in for re-application or give a call to us or your other attorneys and see maybe we can do something about reviewing the denial that should not have occurred. So, it opens the door to that for that.

Robert Bell  32:08

They have the right not have a denial on their record if it was erroneous the first time around.

Evan Nappen  32:13

Right! So, this opens that door. But go ahead, what’s the GOFU, Rob? What is your GOFU?

Robert Bell  32:19

I have encountered it multiple times – voluntary registration of an inherited firearm. And I just don’t understand why someone would do that. I hope no one out there does do it. But in New Jersey, for example, if you inherit a firearm from a loved one, a parent, what have you, you do not have to go through the rigmarole of getting a purchase permit. It simply comes to you. However, there is voluntary registration in the Democratic People’s Republic of New Jersey. You can go to their website and voluntarily give them the information – serial number, the make and model. I don’t know. That’s like talking to cops. And with that, I’m like, I’m good. I’m good.

Evan Nappen  33:01

Yeah, I don’t know why anybody would voluntarily register. The first word is voluntary, which means you don’t have to do it. So, you don’t. There’s no reason to voluntarily register your firearm. I’ve yet to find the reason that makes it a good idea. Haven’t seen it. Now, if someone can tell me that reason, that’d be nice to know. But I don’t see it. And instead, all you’re doing is putting yourself on the radar when there’s no reason to do it. Then people that do voluntarily register, then raise the State and looking into them. So, now you’re simply saying, hey, look at me, check out the reason for registration, and what I’m writing and everything else about it. And so, all you’re doing is waving a big flag at the Government to focus on you as well. It’s completely unnecessary. Absolutely a classic GOFU is anybody stupid enough to voluntarily register one of their guns.

Evan Nappen  34:12

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

Speaker 2  34:27

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 [email protected]. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state.