Court Rulings – Gun Lawyer Podcast

Episode 39- NJ Restores Gun Rights to 88,000 Convicted Felons! Also Available OnPodcast TranscriptGun Lawyer Episode 39 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS expungement, new jersey, proof, gun, gun rights, convicted, evidence, marijuana, hashish, burden, convictions, expunged, firearm, prove, rights, reasonable suspicion, defense, lawyer, gun laws, preponderance SPEAKERS Evan Nappen, Speaker 3 Evan Nappen 00:20 I’m Evan Nappen and welcome to gun lawyer. I have an interesting announcement that I rarely get to make. New Jersey has actually done something incredibly pro-gun. I mean, it really is startling. New Jersey has just restored gun rights to approximately 88,000 convicted drug dealers. This is really amazing because New Jersey rarely ever does anything pro-gun, but the decriminalization of marijuana law has an automatic expungement in it. The court has announced, “New Jersey Judiciary (This is from their news release) Moves Toward Expungement for Nearly 88,000 Marijuana Cases.” (https://www.njcourts.gov/pressrel/2021/pr071221a.pdf) Evan Nappen 01:21 “The New Jersey Judiciary has vacated or dismissed nearly 88,000 cases related to certain marijuana and hashish convictions or pending cases since July 1, following the decriminalization of specific marijuana offenses in New Jersey. The cases are the first of about 360,000 identified by the Judiciary in Superior and Municipal courts…” After vacating convictions or dismissing the cases, the court will automatically expunge those cases in the coming months, and expungement deems the matter not to have occurred. It erases the conviction and removes the felony level disqualifier. So, felony drug dealers convicted under the statutes that are going to be covered will automatically have their gun rights restored by New Jersey. This is a great pro-gun step by New Jersey. Evan Nappen 02:37 Of course, it is really interesting when you look at what New Jersey does, because here, New Jersey is turning criminals into law-abiding citizens, while normally and simultaneously, making law-abiding citizens into criminals with the gun laws. It is absolutely wonderful news here for drug dealers and anyone who possessed large quantities of marijuana and was convicted of it. Now, there is going to be an automatic expungement of those records. Let me tell you even further from a notice that was given to the Bar explaining this. It is really quite fascinating what they have done here. They have put out a notice making it clear that there are approximately 360,000 cases. These are all past cases and convictions all involving the war on drugs. This decriminalization is having an incredible effect for the pro-gun movement. Evan Nappen 03:55 Let me tell you, right from the memo, what cases are going to be dismissed and automatically expunged giving full rights restoration to anyone that falls under these categories. Number one, people that have been convicted of distribution of less than one ounce of marijuana or less than five grounds of hashish. So, even hashish dealers are benefiting by this. If you have that fourth degree, what you would call a felony level because it carries at the time it had 18 months. So, it is over a year. Now that charge is going to be vacated, dismissed, and/or expunged. If you are someone that was convicted of possession of more than 50 grams of marijuana or more than five grams of hashish (you know, the quantity possessors that are normally not personal users) you too benefit here and will get your gun rights restored by New Jersey by way of automatic expungement built into the law. Not only that, it is something that will apply as well to disorderly persons offenses and a whole array of all the “misdemeanor level” although New Jersey calls them disorderly persons that had anything to do with drug possession, such as the marijuana and/or hashish, you will get the benefit of expungement, which will clear up that at least help along the way for that issue of being a user of marijuana or hashish, controlled, dangerous substance that is often used as a disqualifier. Evan Nappen 05:47 Again, it is a nice win for gun rights by New Jersey taking place here. It will also expunge automatically convictions for possession of drug paraphernalia as a disorderly persons offense. It will get rid of any prior convictions for use or being under the influence of controlled dangerous substances. You know that other disqualifier on the on the gun application where they check that stuff, if you have been convicted of that. It is going to be expunged, erased, gone. Failure to make a lawful disposition of a controlled drug which you possessed. You were required to surrender it, and you failed to do so. If you were convicted for that, it is going away as well. If you operated a motor vehicle while in possession of a controlled dangerous substance, your transport is covered by this effort here to get rid of 360,000 convictions. It is quite a win for gun rights here by getting all these folks their rights back. Evan Nappen 07:02 I am really happy to see New Jersey taking such efforts to restore gun rights for folks. In the past, if you had a marijuana conviction and you qualified in terms of the time that you had to wait and all to possibly get it expunged, particularly if you were a seller or distributor of marijuana, and you wanted to get an expungement, there was a path to do it. But it was a discretionary path. You had to go before the judge, and you had to show that you are a good person and rehabilitated in that. You have to convince the judge essentially, of your worthiness, but not anymore. Not anymore. No, this is great. It does not matter what kind of person you are. It does not matter whether you are rehabilitated, none of that, it is just erased, gone. You are going to get expunged, and that whole pain in the neck procedure of having to demonstrate that the individual should get expunged is gone. Isn’t that great that we are just going to clear it for these folks. And man, open it up so that more people can buy guns. That is the thing about getting your rights restored. Evan Nappen 08:18 When your rights are restored, you regain your other Constitutional rights as well. This can include other civil rights that may have been taken away like the right to vote at some point or right to serve on a jury or even to hold public office. Expungements are a great thing. It gives you that second chance that we all believe in. New Jersey has taken steps to clear it for all these 1000s upon 1000s of people. You and I could discuss the merits of the war on drugs and whether it is effective or not. Of course, we are talking about marijuana that is legal and things like that. Hey, I get it. I understand. But here is my thing. I believe down the road when the Supreme Court invalidates New Jersey’s gun control scheme, New Jersey’s gun laws that have turned law-abiding citizens into criminals, have given them felony records, and have yanked their gun rights out from under them by way of absurd and draconian gun laws. Well, I sure hope that we have a major expungement that is automatic and will kick into place to help all those folks as well get their gun rights back. Because the idea of someone being a convicted person and losing their rights is something that you often hear the anti-gun folks pushing. Evan Nappen 10:06 It was Charles Schumer in 1992 that removed the funding for the Federal Relief From Disability Program. If you were convicted of a non-violent Federal offense and you have done your time and you are reformed and a good person, you could ask ATF to restore your rights. But you see, Charles Schumer got that unfunded in 1992. Individuals with Federal convictions have been not able to get their rights restored at all, and New Jersey in a magnificent stroke is restoring rights to hundreds of 1000s of people that are merely convicted drug dealers and possessors of large quantities of drugs. It is really interesting to see this interplay wouldn’t you say? And yet federally, the relief is not available. So, if you have a federal conviction for marijuana or a federal problem, and even if you are a good person, and you really are rehabilitated, you cannot do anything if you are burned under the Federal law thanks to Charles Schumer. Evan Nappen 11:33 What I hear folks talk about and it’s very popular today, of course, is the systemic racism that is built into the drug laws and built into the criminal prosecution system. The left really likes to push that. They really like to scream and shout about just how racist our criminal justice system is. The truth is that blacks are disproportionately convicted felons compared to whites at a ratio of six to one, six to one, and Hispanics at a ratio of two to one. So, isn’t it interesting that Democrats like Schumer won’t allow the funding of a program so that individuals who have proven themselves rehabilitated and to be good, productive members of society can get their rights restored, and that discrimination is at a ratio of six to one of blacks to whites, and that is by the Democrats, of course. So, here at least we have a Democrat administration in New Jersey that has taken some great steps to restoring the rights of hundreds of 1000s of felony level drug dealers, and drug possessors, and those that would otherwise have drug disqualifiers for guns. Assuming they do not have any other issues, they now can exercise their right to keep and bear arms. When we come back, we are going to talk about some other fascinating things. See you then. Evan Nappen 13:23 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, the deck is already stacked against you. You can find him on the web at EvanNappen.com or follow the link on the Gun Lawyer resource page. Evan Nappen – America’s Gun Lawyer. Speaker 3 14:37 You’re listening to Gun Lawyer with Attorney Evan Nappen. Available wherever you get your favorite podcast. Evan Nappen 14:53 Hey, alright, as I have been watching on the internet and social media, they are just coming after us left and right. It is really important to subscribe to the show and tell your friends to subscribe. This is the only way to get information out where we cannot be stopped by the tech gods. Go to Gun Lawyer as a website, www.gun.lawyer instead of a .com Check us out and tell folks to subscribe. Anywhere you can get your favorite podcast, you can get Gun Lawyer. This makes a big difference, and I am counting on you. Evan Nappen 15:45 One of the things I really want to get into and is not generally appreciated or understood by gun owners is how the law actually works. When it comes to self-defense and other defenses, I am not going to get into the law of self-defense per se, when you can shoot and when you cannot shoot. That is a whole other topic for another day or days. But what I do want to explain to you (and many of you do know the basics) and what I want to really pound home and to make, really clear, is this. When it comes to self-defense or what is known as justification for the use of force, the burden of proof is on you and me. A lot of folks do not understand just how significant that is. If you use your firearm in self-defense, then the question, the defense at law, literally the affirmative defense, is that you were justified in using force and/or deadly force. The proof that you were justified rests on you and me to prove it. It does not start out with the state having to disprove it. Now, this is extremely significant, and people do not seem to get why it is significant. With the burden of proof being placed on the lawful defender means that if you use your gun, you are guilty until you can prove your innocence. That is legally how it works, factually how it works, because justification for the use of force is an affirmative defense that the defendant has to put forward initially. Evan Nappen 18:11 So, we are going to allege self-defense in a case or justification for use of force. You have to give notice to the prosecutor that we are going to be arguing this. After giving notice, during the proceeding, the hearing, or the trial, it is going to be up to you and your counsel to present enough evidence to show that you qualify for the use of force, either deadly force or non-deadly force, depending on what type of self-defense actions we are taking here. Only after you put that sufficient level of proof forward, does the state then have the burden to disprove your defense beyond a reasonable doubt. We all live in a society where our understanding is you are innocent until proven guilty. But that is not how it actually works when it comes to using force or deadly force. If you use force or deadly force and you maim, kill, or injure another person, you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent. The burden of proof on showing the defense of the affirmative defense is on you. Evan Nappen 19:45 You see how serious this is, and you see the significance of that because normally in order to be convicted of an offense, the burden is on the state. They have to prove each and every element of the offense by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. So, the burden normally in a criminal prosecution is on the state, and they are the ones that have to prove every element, every part of the offense. They have to prove every part or whatever that law says that offense is, and they have to prove it at a standard of beyond a reasonable doubt which is the highest burden of proof or legal standard of proof that there is in our society. When it comes to burdens of proof, we have two important issues. One is, who has the burden of proof, and as I said in justification, self- defense, you and me, we have the burden. Then the question is what is that burden? Burdens of proof, generally, there is levels of proof. Evan Nappen 21:04 You have levels of proof that begin with the most minor amounts of a standard of “some evidence.” There is some evidence and that is the lowest level, some evidence. Then you can jump a little from that to “reasonable suspicion”. So, what is reasonable suspicion? Maybe an officer is out on patrol, and he sees a car running in front of the bank. Then he sees a guy get out with a mask, and it looks like he has something in his coat. This is reasonable suspicion that there might be something going down. The next level after reasonable suspicion is what we call “probable cause”. Probable cause, you often hear that, and probable cause is a higher standard of proof than just reasonable suspicion. Probable cause is used in determining whether there should be a search warrant issued or whether an arrest is reasonable. Grand juries have to find probable cause whether they issue an indictment, etc. So, probable cause is basically a finding that there is a fair probability that contraband or some other evidence of a crime will be found. And that is where you find the probable cause standard, particularly used often in in searches. Evan Nappen 22:53 Once you get beyond probable cause, we have “preponderance of the evidence” standard. a preponderance of the evidence is what is used in civil cases, civil actions. It basically means a finding of more likely than not. It is almost 50 plus one, so the scale tilts to that side. It is more likely than not. “Clear and convincing evidence” we see that used in equity cases, paternity cases, child custody cases, civil cases, and civil lawsuits etc. This is the standard that we often will see. Then depending on what state you are in, it could be stronger than preponderance. The next level of that is what is called “clear and convincing evidence.” Clear and convincing evidence is higher than preponderance of the evidence, but not as high as “beyond a reasonable doubt”. It is in between. Often clear and convincing is used for professional licensing, and in states that have greater protection for gun rights, when it comes to revoking licenses. They will require clear and convincing evidence as opposed to the mere preponderance of the evidence. Evan Nappen 24:24 The highest burden of proof is “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the burden of proof when it comes to being convicted of a crime where the government can take your freedom, take your life, even, if it is a capital. That standard is reserved as the highest burden of proof and that is what is required to get a conviction on a criminal charge. The burden of proof is what the state would normally have. Again, to prove each and every element of the offense, each section, each part, by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. So, how do they prove a case? How does anyone prove anything? Proofs are done by evidence. You have to submit evidence. Evidence is what are the proofs are. This is why it is important when it comes down to whether evidence can come in or whether it gets suppressed. Because if the evidence is suppressed because rights were violated, then the ability to prove the element by proof beyond reasonable doubt is removed or lessened by the inability of the evidence to come in. Evan Nappen 25:41 It is also why knowing the rules of evidence can be very important. If you can stop evidence from coming in or argue to get evidence to come in, it is always a battle over the burden of proof. And of course, who has that burden when fighting it out in court. These are the fundamental vital concerns that you really rarely ever hear discussed. You need to wrap your mind around the idea that if you were to use your firearm, the burden of proof is on you. Normally, you better hope that you are going to be able to show it by at least preponderance of the evidence, more likely than not, preponderance that you were justified in the use of force so that the judge agrees, and the state has to respond and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not have the justification. See, that is how that game works. Now, what New Jersey does, and some other states as well, is they take this idea of reversing the burden of proof when it comes to using deadly force and possibly taking somebody’s life. This burden of proof switching, I do not necessarily like it, but I can at least understand it because this is a very serious thing. Before they pull that trigger or use deadly force or non-deadly force, they had better be justified and that is something society would want to see. Evan Nappen 27:19 But New Jersey has taken this idea of the defense and the individual having to prove the defense and created a gun control scheme, where guns are all prohibited unless you can prove that you fall within an exemption, because the exemptions are defenses. Possession of all guns in New Jersey is actually prohibited, but then the prohibition can be overcome if you are within an exemption. However, the proof that you are within an exemption always rests with you as the potential defendant. For example, Chapter 39, 2C:5b. talks about possession of a handgun. No person shall possess any handgun unless first having obtained a permit to carry such handgun. If you have a handgun and you do not have a permit to carry, then how do you possess your handgun? There are less than 600 carry licenses for the whole state of New Jersey. Evan Nappen 28:29 So, does anyone legally possess a handgun? Well, it is by way of exemption, and the exemption under another statute says that you are exempt if you are in your home or place of business, or if you are at a target range or while hunting. But the problem is you have to prove that. I have had cases where individuals have been challenged as to whether their home is actually their home and had to prove that their home was their home. You can be forced to these proofs because the burden is actually on you to prove the defense. So, you better make sure whether you are using a firearm in self-defense or whether you are possessing a firearm under a system like Jersey, that you are able to show and you are able to prove your defenses. Keep that in mind so that you can better protect yourself should you ever be in a situation where you have to defend yourself on either a use of a firearm charge or possession of a firearm in New Jersey type charge. This is Evan Nappen, and I want to remind you that gun laws do not protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens. Speaker 3 29:56 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. Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S1 E39_Transcript About The HostEvan Nappan, Esq.Known as “America’s Gun Lawyer,” Evan Nappen is above all a tireless defender of justice. Author of eight bestselling books and countless articles on firearms, knives, and weapons history and the law, a certified Firearms Instructor, and avid weapons collector and historian with a vast collection that spans almost five decades — it’s no wonder he’s become the trusted, go-to expert for local, industry and national media outlets. Regularly called on by radio, television and online news media for his commentary and expertise on breaking news Evan has appeared countless shows including Fox News – Judge Jeanine, CNN – Lou Dobbs, Court TV, Real Talk on WOR, It’s Your Call with Lyn Doyle, Tom Gresham’s Gun Talk, and Cam & Company/NRA News. As a creative arts consultant, he also lends his weapons law and historical expertise to an elite, discerning cadre of movie and television producers and directors, and novelists. He also provides expert testimony and consultations for defense attorneys across America. Email Evan Your Comments and Questions  [email protected] Join Evan’s InnerCircleHere’s your chance to join an elite group of the Savviest gun and knife owners in America.  Membership is totally FREE and Strictly CONFIDENTIAL.  Just enter your email to start receiving insider news, tips, and other valuable membership benefits.   Email (required) *First Name *Select list(s) to subscribe toInnerCircle Membership Yes, I would like to receive emails from Gun Lawyer Podcast. (You can unsubscribe anytime)Constant Contact Use. Please leave this field blank.var ajaxurl = "https://gun.lawyer/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php";

Episode 33- Is FaceBook colluding With the Chi-Coms and ATF to Entrap Innocent Americans? Also Available OnPodcast TranscriptGun Lawyer Episode 33 – Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS warrant, case, gun, facebook, lawyer, law, glock, andrews, gun owners, criminals, fourth amendment, gun rights, home, search, silencer, shipped, backplate, ads, seize, evan SPEAKERS Evan Nappen, Speaker 3 Evan Nappen  00:21 I’m Evan Nappen, and welcome to Gun Lawyer. I don’t know how many of you are on Facebook, but I bet a lot of you are. Facebook is problematic, to say the least when it comes to talking about our issues, and it’s hardly a great bastion of free speech, that’s for sure. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been put in Facebook Jail, good grief, and not for doing anything but making political speech. But you see political speech is not part of their so called “Community Standard”, even though it is part of the First Amendment, but who cares about that, right? So, this is what we deal with. Facebook is very harsh in how they regulate, cut people off, silence people, and ban them and all these things for what essentially becomes political speech that they do not like. Evan Nappen  01:15 The argument goes, “Well, they are a private company. They can do what they want.” Maybe they can; maybe they can’t. The thing that is really annoying to me, and it directly affects gun owners, is that Facebook allows these video advertisements to appear in your feed once they know that you like to look at gun stuff. The limited gun stuff they allow even to go on there. They allow video advertisements to buy products from Communist China. The Chicoms are selling items that are illegal and prohibited under the National Firearms Act. It is outrageous. Evan Nappen  02:11 Individuals purchase such items, not realizing they are illegal, and when it comes in from China, it gets intercepted by Customs and Homeland Security. They do a “controlled delivery”, and then search and arrest you for possessing this unlawful item that Facebook allows to be regularly advertised on it. Imagine if Facebook let the Chinese Communists run video ads to order an energy supplement from China that happens to be cocaine. It is an energy supplement, and it will come right to your door. Think that is okay for Facebook to have those kinds of sales online?  Of course not. Evan Nappen  03:07 Well look, Facebook has a video ad for an auto sear for a Glock. We are talking about a drop-in, replace the backplate, push button, auto sear. Any person can switch out their backplate and drop this auto sear in, and it turns your Glock from semi auto to full auto. It makes your Glock 17 into a Glock 18. Just that piece alone is prohibited as a Machine Gun under the National Firearms Act. Yet, every single time I am scrolling through the newsfeed, there is the ad to sell this backplate that even says Glock on it. They are even putting Glock’s logo on it and selling this piece like it is legit. It is complete contraband, folks. Complete contraband. If these things are ordered and shipped, they are going to be tracked, and you are getting busted. You need to know that you cannot order these. As a matter of fact, one of their gambits, the Chicoms are selling this thing to go on Soft Air Glocks, but amazingly, it fits real Glocks. I mean, good grief. It’s absurd. Evan Nappen  04:38 What are some real cases that have occurred from this? Well, there have been a number of people. I have a case right now, the Moran case, where my client ordered solvent traps. Sorry. That’s the other Gambit. This case is about fuel filters. Fuel filters are alleged to be silencers, and Homeland Security did a controlled delivery. Guess how they were bought? From the Chicoms via a Facebook ad that is constantly being shown. So, Facebook is aiding and abetting the Chicoms by taking their money and putting these ads into their platform that set up otherwise law-abiding Americans to be raided and arrested for the unlawful sale of goods by China. Evan Nappen  05:40 In the Moran case that we are fighting now, he then got charged with counts by the State and with Homeland Security all involved in this. He is not the only one. Recently, there was such a case out of West Seneca, New York. In that case, John Andrews bought the same thing that my client, Moran, purchased. And guess what? There was a controlled delivery, and they raided and charged him with “ghost guns”,  the silencer and all this stuff. But Andrews’ gun accessory was a solvent trap as opposed to the fuel filter Gambit. The solvent trap is how they set him up and went after him. Evan Nappen  06:43 What I really find interesting in this case is what the Court said. The Court knocked out all his charges because of the search being bad. What the court found was a problem with the warrant. The West Seneca Police Detective who got the warrant to go after Andrews’ home, got information from the Federal agencies. In his application for the warrant, he told the justice that issued the warrant, that Andrews was getting a silencer shipped to him. But that’s not true. It was a solvent trap that was being shipped to him. But this choice of words as the court found, and I’ll quote, “The choice of words used by the police in the application were persuasive and wrong.” This is the judge in that case. In his decision, he wrote, “As a result, the Court must find there was a reckless disregard for the true nature of the item and must suppress the items recovered through the search warrant.” So, luckily for Mr. Andrews, the Court did the right thing and suppressed the search as illegal. Evan Nappen  08:00 But it does not stop these law-abiding gun owners from being dragged through the mud and from having to defend themselves in the criminal courts. It is not just Moran and Andrews facing this and having to deal with criminal charges. There is another one, Frederick Oehler, out of New York. A search warrant was issued for him in February 2021. They conducted a search after receiving a tip from U.S. Customs and Border Protection that the defendant had allegedly purchased an illegal firearm silencer from China. Again, the Chinese are selling illegal National Firearm Act (NFA) prohibited items to Americans, and Americans are becoming the subject of criminal prosecution because of it. The worst thing about it is that these ads regularly and freely appear on Facebook. Evan Nappen  09:10 Facebook, a group that will come in and cut you off at the knees for anything that they feel violates their so-called community standards that nobody knows exactly what that means. Yet, they allow these paid advertisements which is in fact facilitating criminal action. Think about it. It’s outrageous. This needs to be stopped. Facebook should not accept advertisements from the Chicoms for illegal NFA-prohibited items. Listen, I’ve seen solvent traps that are allegedly silencers like these cases. Fuel filters just like this that allegedly bring in these cases. Even worse, that Glock auto sear thing is straight out illegal. It is as if China is shipping you a machine gun. Is Facebook cool with that? Can the Chinese advertise full auto AKs? Order them up, and we’ll ship them right to you in America. I don’t think so. Well, that is what that Glock auto sear is, same thing under the law. Evan Nappen  10:33 I’ve seen SBR (Short Barrel Rifle) stocks. Now let me be clear, not pistol braces, but an actual fold up stocks that go in a Glock. If you put that into your slot in the back of your grip on a Glock, you have just SBRed your Glock. You have just created an NFA prohibited item if you actually use it as demonstrated. This is outrageous. They are putting this stuff out and allowing these ads, and good people are suffering. Thinking they are okay. How can this be a problem if it is freely advertised like this? Believing that it is a solvent trap, or it is a fuel filter. Not realizing that if you put this device on you suddenly make an item that is regulated under the National Firearms Act. Outrageous conduct. Evan Nappen  11:38 Do you see anywhere in the lamestream media mentioning this? Complaining about this. Do you see Homeland Security while they are busy raiding law-abiding citizens that fell for this crap? Do you see them raiding Facebook? Do you see them raiding Zuck for doing this with his company? No, you do not see any of that. And who knows? Maybe they are in bed with the Feds, too. Maybe this is all an operation with the Feds? Who knows? I don’t know. How come Facebook is doing this? Is this just one big setup by the Feds to allow Chicom contraband to come into the country? So, they can bust Americans left and right with this garbage? I would like to know, because it is outrageous. Evan Nappen  12:23 But let me tell you most importantly, I do not want to see any of my listeners get into trouble. Do not buy anything that is in any way weapon related from the Chicoms. It’s that simple. Lots of times they will hide it. Oh, this company is USA based. What does that mean? It is still being shipped from China to you. Okay, no, no good. Unless you want to get on the radar of the Feds and get set up for a “controlled delivery”, I highly recommend avoiding anything that has to do with firearms coming from China. It is bad news. They are playing all kinds of games, and it is completely unacceptable. So, beware. When you are on Facebook, be extra careful because they don’t care one bit about your personal liberty and not becoming a criminal unintentionally. When we come back, we are going to talk about a great unanimous decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. I cannot wait to tell you about it. Evan Nappen  13:44 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, the deck is already stacked against you. You can find him on the web at EvanNappen.com or follow the link on the Gun Lawyer resource page. Evan Nappen –America’s Gun Lawyer. Speaker 3  14:59 You’re listening to Gun Lawyer with Attorney Evan Nappen. Available wherever you get your favorite podcast. Evan Nappen  15:14 Hey, folks, I want to mention about my good friend, Mitch Rosen. Mitch makes great holsters. My favorite holsters in the world are Mitch Rosen’s. I have one on right now. And man, wait till you try a Mitch Rosen holster. Look, he is not paying me to say this. I am just telling you this because it is a great product that I want you to know about. It is true. His holsters are really fantastic. They hold the gun without a keeper strap. You can draw it out, put it back so easy yet it holds it so firm. It is almost like magic. Old West gunfighters would have loved Mitch Rosen in those days. When you get one of his holsters, make sure you get the belt with it because that makes a full rig, and it really supports it. It is just great. So, check out Mitch Rosen Extraordinary Gunleather at MitchRosen.com Evan Nappen  16:10 I would also like to tell you to please keep fellow gun owners from becoming law- abiding criminals. Tell them to listen to Gun Lawyer and visit our website at Gun.Lawyer (www.Gun.Lawyer). I own a dot lawyer as opposed to a dot com. Go to Gun.Lawyer., and I would really love for you to take a look at our Inner Circle. It is on our website, sign up for the Inner Circle. You are going to get the inside from me. I’ll be giving you tips, tricks, insights, and fun. Sign up. It’s free. Go to Gun.Lawyer and join our Inner Circle. Evan Nappen  16:46 Remember this whole exercise here, everything we are doing with Gun Lawyer radio and the Inner Circle is to help me communicate with you. So that I can let you know what is going on. Big tech, you know, they do not care about our gun rights. As a matter of fact, they are against us. They are setting us up with raids from Homeland Security and doing all kinds of things you need to know about. They are not letting us express it and get the word out. So, this is how we get around that with this kind of alternative communication. It’s important. They do not like us, and they are trying to shut us down. So, the Inner Circle at Gun.Lawyer radio is a way to stay in contact and avoid their efforts. Please subscribe to the podcast. It helps me get it out there and helps promote the podcast. It is important. Subscribe and tell your friends to subscribe. Help me get the word out. I’m depending on you. Evan Nappen  17:42 Now, one of the exciting cases that just was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court is  Caniglia vs. Strom, et al. This case is really, really outstanding. It was a unanimous decision. All nine Supreme Court judges agreeing with this. I mean, it’s almost shocking to think that. All agreeing that the seizure of a handgun from an individual in his home because of claims that he was mentally having a problem (sort of like red flag, but this was not officially red flag) coming in and taking his gun. He sued over these actions because there was no warrant. There was no warrant to take his gun. Evan Nappen  18:39 What the State, what the Government claimed, oh, well, we can do that. It is under our Community Caretaking Exemption. We do not need a warrant for Community Caretaking. They are abusing and attempting to exploit an exemption that exists for the Fourth Amendment. But the Supreme Court ruled, quite clearly and without any ambiguity, that the Community Caretaking standard in this type of case, does not apply. You need a warrant. When you are invading somebody’s home, as compared to an automobile, by the way, when you are talking about a home, we believe in America that our home is our castle. We believe that we need to be secure in our personal property and effects. Nothing is more sacred than our home and the privacy and protection in our home. You cannot seize guns based on the Community Caretaking standard. It was a 9 to 0 decision and a win, and that is really heartening. Evan Nappen  20:05 I will tell you what, folks, there is a couple of things this case stands for, and it is really interesting. Number one, this case was a unanimous decision but not based on the Second Amendment. We all love the Second Amendment. Not only do we love the Second Amendment, but we love all the Amendments. I love every right that I can get my hands on, frankly.  I love them all. The rights in the Constitution include the Fourth Amendment. Caniglia vs. Strom, et. al was a Fourth Amendment case. This is a case that completely depended upon, ruled upon, and essentially gave a gun owner a win on Fourth amendment, not Second Amendment. The right to be secure against searches and seizures and that a warrant is required under the Fourth Amendment. That is what gave the win here. Evan Nappen  21:11 Why do we have the Fourth Amendment at all? How did this come about? Why did our Founding Fathers feel that we needed to have this type of guarantee and requirement that there be a warrant? As many of the Amendments, the guarantees of our rights, that are in the Bill of Rights or guarantees of our rights, were placed there because of the lousy experience with the British occupiers. What the British did during the Revolution is they would just search and seize at will. There was no warrant requirement for the British to search your home, to tear it up, to look for anything they wanted. There was no privacy. If they wanted to search, they did. They had “General Warrants”, general search, no big deal. Evan Nappen  22:10 Do you know who also had “General Warrants” to search anytime they wanted? The Nazis did. A matter of fact, I actually have a sample of one of these warrants. It is a little metal disk. It looks like something you might see on the end of a key ring. It is a warrant disk. All the Nazi Officer, SS, or Gestapo had to do was come to your door and show you that disk. He could search anywhere, invade your privacy, of which you had none, search your house, tear it apart, looking for anything and everything at their discretion. Evan Nappen  22:55 It is that kind of action that the Fourth Amendment stands to stop. In no way am I saying that the officers involved in the Caniglia case were acting like Nazis, in no way. There was this Community Caretaking idea. It was this concept that they thought they were operating under. But guess what? It does not cut the mustard, folks. It does not cut it when we have an Amendment that mandates a warrant, and we are talking about the protection in our home. It is so refreshing to see that right enforced and given power so that you can assert your Fourth Amendment right. Evan Nappen  23:49 In fact, there was an interesting concurring opinion in this Caniglia case by Justice Samuel Alito. He was a Jersey boy, by the way, which is kind of funny. I like that a lot. But Justice Alito said, and I’ll read you from it. “This case also implicates another body of law that petitioner glossed over: the so-called “red flag” laws that some States are now enacting. These laws enable the police to seize guns pursuant to a court order to prevent their use for suicide or infliction of harm on innocent persons. They typically specify the standard that must be met and the procedures that must be followed before firearms may be seized. Provisions of red flag laws may be challenged under the Fourth Amendment, and those cases may come before us. Our decision today does not address those issues.” Evan Nappen  24:59 Talk about an invitation from the Supreme Court. Well, there it is, folks, right there. He is saying that these red flag laws probably have a lot of problems, and we are probably going to be reviewing them. If any of you out there are subjected to red flag, here is a little hint. Yeah. So, that is a nice thing to read. A nice thing to see that the seizures that New Jersey particularly does on a routine basis many times without any statutory authority whatsoever without even a claim, “Oh, safekeeping. We are doing it for safekeeping.” What the hell is safekeeping? Yet, that is what they write. I have seen it. “We seized the guns for safekeeping.” No warrant. No law about it. Evan Nappen  25:56 When you look at New Jersey’s duty to warn law, where if any doctor or nurse or whoever hears you say anything like, “I could kill that guy.” Or “man, I am so depressed I could kill myself.” Even though you are just talking hyperbolic, and you are not really gonna kill anybody. But whoa, you said that, and they think you have a gun. They are required to report you, and guess what? The Police will come and seize your guns, and guess how they do it? Without a warrant. Oh my, just like Caniglia vs. Strom. Yeah, just like that. The entire New Jersey duty to warn law is now absolutely in tremendous jeopardy, and well, it should be. Evan Nappen  26:44 Remember when these things get taken, well, if you happen to have one of those intrinsically evil magazines that happens to hold over 10 rounds, or something like that, oh, guess what you are getting criminally charged. Or if you possess a slingshot in New Jersey, well, you are going to get charged with a Felony Level offense 18 months in State Prison. How did they get there? Well, a nurse reported that you said you were mad, and you could kill this guy. Oh, great. No warrant, even. Evan Nappen  27:18 Well, guess what? Now anything seized pursuant to these things are going to be subject to really powerful suppression motions. We are using them right now in our practice because this is what takes place. This abuse is not what they present it to be because there are other implications. The other implications are to turn law-abiding citizens into criminals and to take away their gun rights. Everything that we have talked about in this show shows exactly that. That is what they are about. Destroy the law-abiding gun owner, get their guns, set them up, take away their rights and nail them. And that, my friends, is not at all what our system was supposed to be. So, at least we are finally seeing some pushback by the Supreme Court and with credit, a nine zero case. Both sides saying this cannot fly anymore. So, good. Let’s see it continue with this great trend. It is important to our liberty. Evan Nappen  27:32 This is Evan Nappen, reminding you that gun laws do not protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens. Speaker 3  28:37 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. Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S1 E33_Transcript About The HostEvan Nappan, Esq.Known as “America’s Gun Lawyer,” Evan Nappen is above all a tireless defender of justice. Author of eight bestselling books and countless articles on firearms, knives, and weapons history and the law, a certified Firearms Instructor, and avid weapons collector and historian with a vast collection that spans almost five decades — it’s no wonder he’s become the trusted, go-to expert for local, industry and national media outlets. Regularly called on by radio, television and online news media for his commentary and expertise on breaking news Evan has appeared countless shows including Fox News – Judge Jeanine, CNN – Lou Dobbs, Court TV, Real Talk on WOR, It’s Your Call with Lyn Doyle, Tom Gresham’s Gun Talk, and Cam & Company/NRA News. As a creative arts consultant, he also lends his weapons law and historical expertise to an elite, discerning cadre of movie and television producers and directors, and novelists. He also provides expert testimony and consultations for defense attorneys across America. Email Evan Your Comments and Questions  [email protected] Join Evan’s InnerCircleHere’s your chance to join an elite group of the Savviest gun and knife owners in America.  Membership is totally FREE and Strictly CONFIDENTIAL.  Just enter your email to start receiving insider news, tips, and other valuable membership benefits.   Email (required) *First Name *Select list(s) to subscribe toInnerCircle Membership Yes, I would like to receive emails from Gun Lawyer Podcast. (You can unsubscribe anytime)Constant Contact Use. Please leave this field blank.var ajaxurl = "https://gun.lawyer/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php";