Gun Lawyer

Also Available OnShould Convicted Felons Be allowed to possess a gun? In this episode, Evan takes on this controversial topic from an angle you never expected. Podcast TranscriptGun Lawyer Season 1 Episode 2 – Transcript Systemic Racism, Amy Barrett and the Honey Badger SUMMARY KEYWORDS firearm, brace, felons, gun, switchblade, arm brace, short barrel rifle, pistol, Amy Barrett, dissent, convicted felons, handgun, loophole, law, rifle, democrats, Charles Schumer, gun laws, ban, systemic racism I’m Evan Nappen, and it’s time for your Gun Lawyer conference call. You know, I was watching the hearings, as I’m sure many of you were, with Amy Coney Barrett. And I thought she’s fantastic. Oh, man, we are just blessed to have someone like her. Not only because she’s a student of the great Scalia, but because she is an Originalist. What that means is she will interpret the Constitution as our Founders meant it to be interpreted and not this garbage of the Constitution being a living document. Okay, it’s not a living document. No document is living. It’s not living. What it is, is a solid foundation of our laws, and it needs to be applied in the manner that it was originally designed to be applied. And to get someone like Amy Coney Barrett replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg, good grief, the opposite of an activist judge – a judge who interprets the Constitution under today’s standards that are often insane. This is super important. And yet, what totally thrilled me is that Judge Barrett was asked in her questionnaire for being vetted here by the Senate on her to become a justice on the Supreme Court: What she felt one of her most significant cases, significant opinion she’s ever written, what is it? And that was just awesome what she said, because what she said is that her dissent in Cantor versus Bar, which was a Seventh Circuit decision. Her dissent in that case, was what she considered to be one of her most significant decisions. I think about how many cases she’s ruled on and how many things you know, she covered in her legal tenure so far from qualified immunity and employment disability and hostile work environment claims and interpretation of Federal immigration laws. And yet, her choice was her dissent in Cantor. Which is awesome, because what was Cantor? Cantor involved an individual who had been convicted of a felony for selling a bad shoe insert – a shoe insert that apparently had not been approved by the FDA. They charged him with fraud in this regard, and he became a felon for this non-violent, shoe insert offense. And Cantor said, look, why am I permanently disbarred of my right to have a gun, over a felony conviction which was non-violent, and involved nothing having to do with guns or threat to anybody’s life or limb, none of that. Judge Barrett wrote this great dissent, saying why this should not be a bar to him, that this felony conviction should not take away his right to have a firearm. Now, this was a dissent because the other judges disagreed with her. But that just shows you the guts, the balls, the commitment to her philosophy of the Constitution. Her dedication to the actual Constitution and to write this dissent, and in effect, say that not all felons should lose their right to have a gun. If you watched the hearings, you saw the anti-gun left Senators trying to go at her on this, trying to paint a picture – oh, you think felons should have guns and just painting it like she’s gonna be arming, you know, Charles Manson or something, which is hardly the case. But I want to go a little deeper here because there’s an issue that is not being portrayed here in a way that it should be. And it’s important, it really is. Because when it comes to felons not being able to own guns, I think an average citizen can see the absolute unfairness in somebody losing a Constitutional right. When first of all, they paid their debt to society. They did their time for the crime, they paid their price, and yet, there’s this continuing price on their head that they have to pay for the rest of their life, in terms of a loss of a fundamental right. On its face, that seems pretty outrageous. When the Federal gun laws were put forward, particularly in the 1968 Gun Control Act, they added a provision called Relief from Disabilities. It is a relief from disabilities under U.S. Title 18, Section 925. It allows convicted felons to apply to get a restoration of their gun rights, to get a relief from the disability, the disability being the ban on them to ever possess a gun. There’s an entire process laid out under Title 18 Section 925 to do this. It has also been put in by way of regulation on how to do it. It requires a showing by the person. You apply to the BATF, and you have to put forward, essentially prove, that you’re now a good person. You have reformed, been rehabilitated. You are an asset to soci

In this Premier episode, Evan pulls back the curtain to reveal the diabolical, systematic, backdoor plan to abolish the Second Amendment forever. Also Available OnPodcast TranscriptGun Lawyer Season 1 Episode 1 – Transcript Hi, I’m Evan Nappen. And it’s time for your Gun Lawyer conference. Hey, welcome to this premiere episode of Gun Lawyer. And what I’m going to discuss today is critically important. It’s critically important because our rights are absolutely on the line. It’s never been more stark in terms of the contrast. And what I’m talking about, of course, is the Presidential election. What I want to do is give you actual understanding of what Joe Biden’s plans are. In terms of the gun issue, there’s nothing more important to our rights than getting President Trump re-elected. And I’m going to explain why by going through Joe Biden’s actual plans and platform for what he’s going to do in his attempt to destroy our Second Amendment rights. And it’s nothing less than a destruction of our Second Amendment rights. I’m getting this directly from Joe Biden’s website, by the way. And he has proudly put this out, and it’s hiding in plain sight. And yet, I don’t know anywhere where it’s actually been discussed, actually been reviewed and explained as to the horrible consequences should Biden succeed and the Democrats take control of the Senate and get this agenda through. And let me be clear, this is not just pie in the sky stuff from Biden. This is the new and the Christmas list, if you will, wish list of all the anti-gun groups for which Biden is bought and paid for by Bloomberg, and his organizations such as Million Moms and Moms Demand and the BLM and the Every Town and on and on all the money’s all the issues here are going into seeing this agenda get through. And this anti-gun agenda is really startling and they will pass it because it has been fully paid for to get passed. So this is scary times. And when I explain these things to you, I’m sure you’ll be amazed as well as to how far Biden intends to take his plan in his first four years, for that matter, his first hundred days. First thing on Biden’s agenda is to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Now what is that? Well, that is a law right now that protects gun manufacturers and dealers from lawsuits, many which are even frivolous, but lawsuits designed to destroy the firearm industry. The theory is to sue gun manufacturers and even dealers when somebody commits a wrongdoing with a gun, when a third party does something wrong with a firearm and the firearm perform perfectly as designed. They want to sue the manufacturers and the dealers and hold them responsible. It would be like being able to sue the car company because of a car accident that you caused with a car. You know bank robbers robber bank with a car so you sue the car company because they used it unlawfully. Well, that’s what they want to do here. They want to make it so that the Trial Lawyers can use the tort system, the civil personal injury laws to actually litigate into oblivion, to use the tort system to destroy the gun manufacturing industry by allowing the civil lawsuits to proliferate. And that’s what the lawful Act, the Protection of Lawful Commerce Act protects now, and Biden wants to remove it. And it will have devastating consequences to our ability to even buy a gun or ammunition for that matter. Time code: 5:19 Now that tops off the agenda that’s right at the beginning, but it gets significantly worse. And it is quite thorough, what he wants to do is to ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high capacity magazines. Now remember, Joe Biden helped usher through the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban with spearheading it with Diane Feinstein and got it through. That was the first Federal assault weapon ban that was sunset for 10 years, and it went away and it did not get re-enacted. Well, Biden wants to bring it back only 100 times worse. What he’s gonna do is, this time around, there’s going to be a ban on all new manufacture and sale of any new so-called assault firearms, and so- called high capacity magazines. Time code: 6:29 But last time, everything was grandfathered, as you may recall. So they banned new manufacturing sale, but anything that was out there, you got to keep. But not this time, folks, no, no, not this time. This time, he is going to make every magazine fed, semi-automatic rifle into the equivalent of a machine gun under federal law. He is going to put every one of those guns into the National Firearm Act (the NFA) from 1934, in the same category as machine gun. So that if you want to keep your semi-auto, you’re going to have to register it with the National Firearms Act and pay a $200 tax, it’s actually a tax, $200 tax per gun, and per magazine for that matter. Becaus