Episode 238- Business and Gun Laws Don’t Protect Your Rights

Gun Lawyer

Episode 238-Business and Gun Laws Don’t Protect Your Rights

Also Available On

Searchable Podcast Transcript

Gun Lawyer– Episode 238

SUMMARY KEYWORDS

Gun laws, financial interests, NFA modification, silencers, Hearing Protection Act, reconciliation bill,

business model, deregulation, gun rights, overcriminalization, President Trump, ATF budget, gun

transport, holster security.

SPEAKERS

Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen, Speaker 2

Evan Nappen 00:14

I’m Evan Nappen.

Teddy Nappen 00:16

And I’m Teddy Nappen.

Evan Nappen 00:18

And welcome to Gun Lawyer. One of the things I’ve observed over, oh, almost 40 years of fighting for

gun rights and fighting for law-abiding citizens to save their rights and being an activist and a student of

gun laws, generally, and gun rights suppression is there are times when business interests of what we

might normally think of as folks that would be pro-our gun rights. Sometimes, financial incentives can

get in the way of that, and it can cause issues that create laws or keep laws that you would like to

otherwise to get rid of when financial interests have kind of evolved from the laws themselves. Now, on

one hand, I might even say, hey, I practice gun law. What if all the gun laws went away? What would

you do? Do I want to have gun laws? And I’m like, no, I don’t. I’m like a cancer doctor. I’m not pro-

cancer, and we have to fight the cancer that exists. But if all the gun laws went away, I’d be very happy,

and I’d find something else to do. You know, something else that is a passion and an interest.

Evan Nappen 01:59

Now, they’re not all going away, but I don’t have an actual interest in seeing more gun laws. I want to

see less gun laws. I want to see our rights. I believe in this with my heart and soul. But, you know,

some businesses and all that have really heavy financial interests in certain laws sometimes that can

not necessarily be the case. So, there’s an interesting story that I picked up in AmmoLand, which was

by John Crump. (https://www.ammoland.com/2025/05/silencer-centrals-suppressor-lobbying-sparks-

controversy-over-nfa-deregulation-stance/) It talks about a controversy that we’re dealing with right now

that kind of points out this issue. Now I’m not sure whether the business interest here is absolutely

impacting our rights, but there’s a controversy where there’s a claim, arguably, that it is.

Evan Nappen 03:00

Let me tell you what’s going on. So, we have federally pending right now in the big, beautiful bill by

President Trump, what is part of what they call “reconciliation”, where we can get things done that’s

Page – 1 – of 13very important to get done. Because with reconciliation, there’s no cloture. There’s no ability to have the

so-called filibuster rule, where we’ve got to get 60 votes in the Senate. It can pass with simple

majorities, and currently, the Republicans have those majorities, at least in theory, in both houses.

Otherwise, you can rest assured that the gun rights oppressors that are the Democrats will try to stop

anything that tries to get rid of oppressive gun laws. So, reconciliation is politically important.

Evan Nappen 03:58

One of the issues that is circulating at the moment is modifying and changing the NFA, the National

Firearms Act, to take silencers out of the National Firearms Act. To take short barrel rifles, short barrel

shotguns and such out of it. And given the abuses, particularly that came with pistol brace

reinterpretations and, you know, short barrel shotguns is such a phony baloney issue when we have

shock waves and the like out there that the average person cannot even tell the difference. They’re not

exorbitantly, in any way, in any other way, causing more problems than any other gun. I mean, it’s just

ridiculous the way they focus on objects. Anything they can ban; they want to keep banned.

Evan Nappen 04:50

So, here we have this potential opportunity, particularly when it comes to silencers. Because there’s

been a huge movement throughout the United States to take silencers out of NFA and to put silencers

where they belong as simply a firearm accessory. We have the SHORT (Stop Harassing Owners of

Rifles Today) Act and the Hearing Protection Act (HPA), so that we can have silencers to protect our

hearing, and silencers are really excellent for this. Because you can shoot at the range and not have to

have hearing protection on. You can hunt with silencers. There are so many states that have legalized

silencer hunting. You can listen for game carefully, listen for other hunters, even, and it’s much safer.

You don’t blow your ears out when you shoot. So, we’re saving our hearing and making so it’s easier to

hear range commands and safety at the range. There are so many advantages.

Evan Nappen 05:53

The way the media has traditionally portrayed suppressors has just been a complete falsehood. You

know they don’t go psst, psst, psst. You know that isn’t how silencers work. They still make a noise. It’s

just that the level of noise is reduced to the degree that it doesn’t blow your freaking ears out. You still

make plenty of noise. And if any of you have shot suppressed firearms, you know that noise is

produced. And yes, we’re always trying to get it quieter and better, but they are not silent. It is

suppressed, but not silent. So, with all these advantages and the amazing leaps that silencers have

taken in public acceptance and unbelievably great utilitarian value, the opportunity now pushed hard by

the ASA, American Silencer Association, and all, you know, is really paying off. We have this

opportunity to finally get, hopefully, the NFA, that archaic law from the ’30s that imposed a $200 tax and

registration and this whole ridiculous additional paperwork that’s completely unnecessary in a modern

age. We have the ability to do an instant check on guns, and if suppressors were taken out of NFA and

simply put on a 4473, let’s say, just the same way you buy a rifle, shotgun or handgun, then it would

make it available for others. Now I don’t even think they should be regulated at all. It’s simply an

accessory but at least take them out of that entire glorious bureaucratic federal nightmare called the

National Firearms Act.

Evan Nappen 07:45

Page – 2 – of 13So, here in the reconciliation bill, we’ve had some great gun groups, particularly Gun Owners of

America (GOA) and the American Silencer Association (ASA) and others, pushing this genuine

opportunity to possibly get the NFA changed. And given the political landscape here, we could get

these things finally, once and for all, removed. And keep in mind that reconciliation deals with money

and taxes, and the basis for the NFA is tax station. So, the argument that gun laws can’t be modified in

reconciliation actually falls flat on its face and cuts against it hard, because the origination of the

jurisdiction for these laws is taxation. So, the opportunity legally is there.

Evan Nappen 08:45

Yet, what happened, and this is from this article, is a controversy has arisen, a controversy in which

Silencer Central, which is one of the largest sellers and manufacturers of suppressors in the U.S. There

are claims, and again, not saying that this is true or not, I’m just reading from the article that the

business model of Silencer Central is somewhat reliant upon an exemption in the NFA, the National

Firearms Act. If you follow through with the federal regulations in terms of registration and all the

requirements, they can ship suppressors lawfully direct to your door. You can’t do that with firearms.

Firearms have to be over the counter from a dealer, but suppressors, even though they’re NFA, can be

sold directly to individuals that follow the proper federal procedures. And by taking silencers out of the

NFA, apparently, this business model of Silencer Central will be greatly impacted, and the claims are

that they have apparently tried to stop this. And whether or not that’s true, I believe the company

disputes it, and I’m not taking a position one way or another. But it is true that they have an economic

interest in maintenance of the current system based on their business model. So, I don’t know whether

it’s true or not. But it does raise the issue of the impact of businesses on our gun rights that I’ve seen

historically, even in the past, and we’ve had issues similar to this that were raised.

Evan Nappen 10:58

And so, right now, the reconciliation bill apparently has been amended so that instead of removing

silencers from the NFA, they simply lowered the tax from $200 to $5. Sure, it’s great that we no longer

have to pay $200 and we only pay $5. But money is hardly the big issue when it comes to NFA.

Originally, when the NFA was passed, a $200 tax was exorbitant, and only the wealthy in the 1930s

would be able to afford to pay such a tax. So, it operated essentially as a ban on most of the public by

the excessive taxation. The $200 tax applied to machine guns, silencers and other NFA weapons. But

today, $200, essentially, is a good dinner at a great place with your partner there, and it’s not, you

know, the same in terms of the value of money. But, hey, do I like to save $195 when I want to buy a

suppressor? Sure, that’s great. But what I’d really love to see is the NFA finally given its due, and

removal of these items from the NFA. And as we start taking things out of the NFA, we could eventually

remove even full auto, hopefully. So, this is what’s supposed to go, but currently, that’s not the case. As

the reconciliation bill stands at this moment, it’s simply a reduction in the tax itself, but the NFA stays in

place and there’s controversy.

Evan Nappen 12:43

Now, the official response from Silencer Central, which I have quoted here from AmmoLand, says

“Silencer Central is closely monitoring the ongoing congressional hearings surrounding the Hearing

Protection Act (HPA)”, which is the bill that would remove silences from the NFA. “We have always

been vocal supporters of the HPA, as well as the current proposed provision of a $0 tax stamp.” So,

Page – 3 – of 13maybe it’ll get lowered to no tax. “Our priority has always been, and will continue to be, advocating for

deregulation and 2nd amendment rights, while supporting any win we can get for our customers

regarding their firearm and accessory ownership rights along the way. Regardless of the ever-changing

regulatory landscape, we remain focused on delivering exceptional service and standing by the

community we’re proud to be part of.” And that was Brandon Maddox, CEO, Silencer Central.

Evan Nappen 13:39

I can understand wanting to get any win we can get, and remember, that’s not a bad philosophy. We

can’t make perfect the enemy of good. We lost our rights incrementally, and often we have to regain

them incrementally. So, I don’t know what the actual story is here, but it raises in a historical context

where I’ve seen this before. I mean, the original NFA, ultimately, when it came to what we’ll essentially

call a ban, even though it was technically banned, but this exorbitant tax. I mean, you realize that it was

actually supported at the time, on record by Auto Ordinance and by Colt, testifying to the committees in

favor of it, folks. In favor of it. Because the civilian market wasn’t that large. They wanted military and

law enforcement, of course, and this became something more of economics at the time.

Evan Nappen 14:36

We saw this again in 1968 when it came to the banning of imported firearms. You had the United

States gun manufacturers, major U.S. gun makers in favor of the restrictions on importation. Why?

Because it helped their business. They didn’t care about its impact across the board and our ability to

own a variety of firearms from all over the world. They wanted to protect their business interests. We

saw it again when Smith & Wesson did their infamous Rose Garden ceremony.

Teddy Nappen 15:13

And with Ruger.

Evan Nappen 15:18

Well, Ruger was, way back when, the assault fireman magazine ban, was pending. You know, Ruger

came out through the Heritage Foundation, I believe. At the time, Heritage Foundation and all that they

were not opposed to magazine restrictions. And again, why? Because, you know, the guns Ruger was

primarily making at the time wasn’t concerned with a 15 round mag. At the time, but Ruger is not that

anymore. But back then, because the gun was, you know, essentially the Mini-14, and they had already

restricted it on their own, primarily to law enforcement. They eventually opened up to civilians, but they

weren’t opposed to, at the time, the magazine restriction. Because that wasn’t their main goal, you

know.

Evan Nappen 16:10

We saw it again with Smith & Wesson, with the Rose Garden, the so-called infamous Rose Garden

ceremony, supporting gun locks on guns, locking up guns. When Smith had their patented internal lock

system and all that. And that backfired on them big time. I mean, it ended up causing people, it harmed

the brand significantly. That was a backfire. But, you know, business interests can sometimes influence

gun rights, and it’s something we always have to be cognizant of. Like I said, I’m not sure in the silencer

controversy, what is the truth or not, but there is definitely potential for this to be the case. It’s

something to be aware of as we fight for our rights.

Page – 4 – of 13Evan Nappen 16:54

I want to give you a couple important news updates, and of course, Teddy will be giving us his Press

Check segment very shortly. I want to mention something really, really significant about President

Trump and just some of the great things he’s doing. And this is more than just guns, but it absolutely

can affect firearms. President Trump has taken steps over the “absurd and unjust consequences of

overcriminalization”. And this, too, is an article out of AmmoLand.

(https://www.ammoland.com/2025/05/president-trump-decries-absurd-consequences-of-

overcriminalization/) You can read it by Jacob Sullum, and it’s very interesting. He points out this

particularly this one egregious case where federal prosecutors have charged a person named

(Michelino) Sunseri with a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail. And what did this

person do? They used a trail in the National Park Service described as closed, even though they never

bothered to clearly inform about it. He unwittingly. He had no knowledge. He didn’t know, and he

violated one of the thousands of federal gun, federal regulations, and they carry criminal penalties. All

the federal regulations here that can still be criminally enforced. Even though he had no intention

whatsoever of violating it, this creates a huge proliferation of agency-defined crime.

Evan Nappen 18:40

These regulations are passed without Congress passing them and without being signed by the

President. They’re done by fiat, ultimately almost by the agencies just promulgating regulations that

carry criminal penalties. And you may say, well, how many of these exist? According to the article,

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and coauthor Janie Nitze note, in their 2024 book on “the human

toll of too much law”, estimates suggest there are 300,000 federal agency regulations that carry

criminal sanctions. No one can possibly know these laws. There’s another great book out there called

“Three Felonies a Day (How the Feds Target the Innocent” by Harvey A. Silvergat). We each commit at

least three felonies a day, and we don’t even know it. So, I’m happy to see that President Trump, by

Executive Order, has taken steps to require that prosecutions by the Justice Department require a

showing that there is going to be an intentional violation and that these should not be regarded as strict

liability defenses. President Trump says the status quo is absurd and unjust, and it allows the Executive

Branch to write law in addition to executing it. So, I’m glad to see that taking place here.

Evan Nappen 20:18

Another quick news headline I want to mention, which is quasi a GOFU, but not our official GOFU of

the show, is about a Texas mom who purchased ammo for her mass shooter-obsessed son. Now this

is from the aggregate news of “Not the Bee”. (https://notthebee.com/article/texas-mom-purchased-

ammunition-for-mass-shooter-obsessed-son-who-was-going-to-be-famous-before-grandma-turned-him-

in) So, you probably heard of the Babylon Bee. They do parodies, and they’re hilarious. I love the Bee.

You probably love the Bee, too, if you know what I’m talking. But they have another thing they put out

called “Not the Bee”, where they have articles that should be Babylon Bee articles, but they’re not,

because they’re real. So, they’re often even more funny and shocking, although this is really something

here. This San Antonio mom, who you should see her picture. Oh, my God. Purple hair, face tattoos, all

over the place. Oh, boy.

Evan Nappen 21:13

Page – 5 – of 13Anyway, what she did was.

Teddy Nappen 21:14

A LARPing, a LARPing communist, if you will.

Evan Nappen 21:17

So, whatever. I don’t know. But she, apparently, was arrested because they did an investigation into

threats by her son, who’s a student at Rhodes Middle School on the inner west side. He had a

fascination with past mass shooters, and he was found to have ammunition, a makeshift explosive and

a note referencing mass shooting incidents. And the note was for Brenton Tarrant, who was the perp in

the New Zealand mosque shooting. Apparently, the grandmother, not the mother, happened to hear

him saying that he was going to be famous, and the grandmother reported what was going on. The

affidavit says that he admitted he got ammunition from his mother, who had been taking him to a

surplus store and bought him tactical gear in exchange for babysitting his younger siblings. Documents

described the items purchased included magazines and tactical gear and helmets and all kinds of stuff.

Then threats that were made by the son were there, and now she is facing the charge, the mother, of

aiding in the commission of terrorism, after officials say that she helped her son gather items found to

have been used in other acts of mass violence.

Evan Nappen 22:58

So, keep in mind, folks. Now look, we love our youth and training our youth to shoot, and all the joys of

firearms and hunting and shooting, and that’s good. But something like this, where it’s going off the

rails, you better really be careful, because you can end up having a serious problem.

Teddy Nappen 23:20

One thing I’m just kind of curious about is, could this spin off? I know they’ve been trying their best to go

after gun dealers for, you know, for people, they’ve used guns for the shootings. But could this go as far

as a private sale at some point, and then they try to accuse you of aiding and abetting?

Evan Nappen 23:42

Yes. So, one of the things here, of course, is that yes, it could be ripe for abuse. I could well see law-

abiding gun owners who had no intent of being the way this mother allegedly appears to have been

acting and then trying to make out that the otherwise law-abiding gun owner was engaging in this

behavior when in fact, they weren’t. Never underestimate the abuse that can take place when it comes

to a gun rights oppressors trying to disenfranchise law-abiding citizens of their gun rights. But in this

particular case, at least from what the article says, it seems that the mother was not being real smart

here to say the least.

Teddy Nappen 24:27

Yeah, there was the one. I’m trying to remember, which of the shootings, but there was one where the

guy essentially broke into his parents safe and stole the gun.

Evan Nappen 24:36

And, yeah, that’s a whole different thing.

Page – 6 – of 13Teddy Nappen 24:40

They also wanted to go after the parents.

Evan Nappen 24:41

Yeah, and they did. So, these are the kinds of things that, of course, can. Where they use these things

to then essentially be a straw man for law enforcement against the law-abiding. And that is something

that we might see. You never know. It’s possible. So, we do have to be very vigilant at all times. But let

me mention something that you may want to take advantage of, and that is regarding our friends at

WeShoot. WeShoot is offering a free dessert, and this dessert is very interesting. They have friends at

The Butchers Steakhouse, which is a New Jersey Kosher fine-dining destination. When you go to The

Butchers Steakhouse and mention WeShoot, you’ll get a free dessert. This way you could have really a

great date night, as WeShoot pointed out. You can go to the range, and then you can go out for a great

meal. WeShoot does highly recommend the molten chocolate cake, just in case you’re wondering what

you should get.

Evan Nappen 25:53

And keep in mind, WeShoot is an indoor range in Lakewood. It’s where both Teddy and I shoot as well.

We love it there. They have great training, a great pro shop, and great service. WeShoot is a resource

that you should take advantage of. It’s hard enough finding great places to shoot in New Jersey, but

WeShoot is one of them. They’re conveniently located right in Lakewood, right off the parkway. You can

get your CCARE certificate to get your carry, and you’re able to get plenty of other training, too. Or just

enjoy a great day at the range. So, you want to check out WeShoot at weshootusa.com. They have a

great website, beautiful photographs, and all kinds of great deals on guns and specials. Check out

WeShoot. Try out we shoot. You’ll really be glad you did.

Evan Nappen 26:52

And, of course, living in New Jersey means we constantly have to be vigilant about our rights, and one

of the ways to do that is to be a member of the state Association. When I call it the state Association,

I’m talking about the official NRA affiliate for our state, and that is the Association of New Jersey Rifle &

Pistol clubs, anjrpc.org. You need to be a member. They are the premier gun rights organization in New

Jersey. They are out there every day defending our rights with a full-time paid lobbyist in Trenton.

They’re litigating, as we speak, in federal court, defending our gun rights. Fighting the oppression that

New Jersey has placed upon us regarding semi-auto firearms and standard capacity magazines, and,

of course, trying to restrict our rights under the Carry Killer law. The Association is there battling these,

as we speak, and on guard in Trenton. Be part of the solution, folks. Join the Association of New Jersey

Rifle & Pistol clubs. You’ll get their email updates, and you’ll get sent very simple things you can do to

notify your legislators of your view on pending legislation to really make a difference. You’ll get a

fantastic printed newsletter, the best in the state, and you’ll know what’s going on in New Jersey on gun

rights oppression. So, join anjrpc.org. Go there and make sure you’re a member.

Evan Nappen 28:24

And while you’re at it, you should also get a copy of my book, New Jersey Gun Law. It is the Bible of

New Jersey gun law. It’s over 500 pages with 120 topics, all in a question-and-answer format. It is used

Page – 7 – of 13all the time. I can’t tell you how many people call me and tell me that my book saved their ass. I’m not

kidding. They said I didn’t know this. I didn’t know that. They use it to even explain to law enforcement

at times, because they keep it in the car. No, I’m legal. Here’s why. Here’s Nappen’s book, and on and

on. This book is a tool. This book can defend you. And with it being 500 pages, you could even use it

as a weapon itself by hitting someone with it. I’m just kidding about that, of course. But the book is out

there. It’s in the 25th Anniversary Edition. When you get the book, scan the QR code on the front, and

you will immediately be able to join, for free, my subscriber base. That’s private, and you will be able to

access the 2025 Comprehensive Update that fully updates the book. We’re keeping it updated. By

joining, you’ll get emails of any updates. In the 2025 Comprehensive Update is a standalone chapter of

“sensitive places”, where you can and can’t carry and it is current. So, help yourself and get the book.

Go to EvanNappen.com, EvanNappen.com. Click on the orange book right there and order yourself a

copy today. So, Teddy, what you have for us in Press Checks?

Teddy Nappen 30:00

As we know, Press Checks are always free. Again, we’ve talked about a lot of the great things that

President Trump has been dealing with in terms of cutting back on the Government, many of which

cutting on a lot of their budget. This comes from our friends at BearingArm news.

(https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2025/05/02/trump-calls-for-big-cuts-to-atf-budget-citing-attacks-

on-second-amendment-n1228505) President Trump’s budget request of 2026. He’s cutting the ATF

budget down by $468 million, as opposed to their 1.62 billion. That is essentially a one-third slash to

their budget. And that goes to all of their SWAT team, you know, the SWAT units that they use.

Teddy Nappen 30:42

And it kind of got me to think about what was the ATF supposed to be? Like, what was the original

intent? Everyone always tells me, it’s the part of the Treasury. They were just supposed to work for

paperwork. And then it became this militarized wing where now they’re just knocking on doors. Well,

they used to, but now I may they still are knocking on people’s doors, asking about auto sears. So, I

actually went to the ATF website, and they have this giant timeline. (https://www.atf.gov/our-history/atf-

history-timeline) It’s a slide show, where you slide it one after the other and reading through it, you

actually see their justification. How do they envision themselves? What do they see when someone

becomes an ATF agent? What do they see? Like, you know. “Let’s do some good.” So.

Evan Nappen 31:37

Is that the Eliot Ness quote?

Teddy Nappen 31:39

Yeah, right. From “The Untouchables. So, and we’ll get to that. The ATF timeline starts off the Act of

July 31, 1789.

Evan Nappen 31:50

Oh, come on. There was no ATF in 1789.

Teddy Nappen 31:54

I know. Here’s the deal. They argue about the tariffs that were in place.

Page – 8 – of 13Evan Nappen 32:01

Do you know why they’re putting that? Because they’re trying to fit themselves under the test for

Constitutionality. To try and say, oh yeah, we existed. Yeah, right.

Teddy Nappen 32:13

Yeah. It was all about because they were trying to drum up revenue after the Rev War, to pay off the

war debts. Then in 1791, there was a domestic tax on spirits, which then led to the Whiskey Rebellion,

in which the federal Government created a federal militia to dispatch the non-compliant distilleries. That

is, where originally.

Evan Nappen 32:39

Were they dog shooting during the Whiskey Rebellion? I don’t recall a lot of dog shooting taking place

in the Whiskey Rebellion.

Teddy Nappen 32:46

I know there. You know they were shooting dogs over non-compliant distillers.

Evan Nappen 32:53

Only drunk dogs. Drunken mutts.

Teddy Nappen 32:56

Yeah. But you see the early seeds of what’s laid. Now comes the Office of Internal Revenue Services

created in 1862 within the Department of Treasury. One department was created to enforce the

tobacco and alcohol tariffs. So, the ATF was the tariff unit. That was their deal, and they had, by the

way, three detectives who hunted down the tariff evaders. That’s their term.

Evan Nappen 33:27

Well, I don’t think they’re doing that now, although tariffs have become important. Maybe we should just

make ATF solely deal with tariffs and lay off Second Amendment rights. Right? That might.

Teddy Nappen 33:40

I know they focus in but.

Evan Nappen 33:43

Well, they have quite a storied history. And I underline story.

Teddy Nappen 33:47

Yeah. And then what you see comes next. On October, 3, 1917, the War Revenue Act passes, where

now they’ve expanded their Bureau’s powers, and they have access to merchant books. Huh? Doesn’t

that sound familiar?

Teddy Nappen 34:01

Merchant books.

Page – 9 – of 13Evan Nappen 34:04

Merchant books. A & D books? Acquisition and disposition books?

Teddy Nappen 34:10

Wonder, what common road?

Evan Nappen 34:11

Zero tolerance for any mistakes. I doubt it. Yeah, by now and yet, although maybe they did, considering

how old Biden was.

Teddy Nappen 34:19

Yeah. But now this is where everything kicks off. Then came the 18th Amendment, the banning of

alcohol. Now what comes next was the Volstead Act, the Prohibition Enforcement Act. The Treasury

agents are now enforcement agents, where they have become, and I love this term they use. The

Bureau Prohibition Act of 1927 the unit to fight organized crime, the prohibition unit, which,

Evan Nappen 34:48

Which, of course, prohibition just enhanced organized crime and strengthened it.

Teddy Nappen 34:51

Correct.

Evan Nappen 34:53

Because it gave them a product that they could make millions and millions and millions of dollars with.

So, that worked out well. Oh, that was a good experiment.

Teddy Nappen 35:01

I know, right? And you see what they see themselves as. Like Eliot Ness, where they’re like, you know,

let’s do some good. They’re stopping organized crime. And then, I love this. Then in 1930, it shifted

from the Department of Treasury to the Department of Justice. Keep that in mind. This is important

because now they’ve shifted away from the Treasury. They’re in the Justice Department. Now they’re

an enforcement agency, an investigative part of the Government. Then the 21st Amendment came

around, which then dissolved their whole.

Evan Nappen 35:42

Now they lost their whole focus. So, now they’ve got to find something to do. We can’t have a

bureaucracy disappear, right? So, what did they decide they’re going to do now?

Teddy Nappen 35:49

Then their unit focused on illegal distillers. Oh, all those boon gins. Yeah. And then here comes. Now

all this has laid out the groundwork. In 1934, the National Firearms Act is imposed. Now they’ve got to

combat gang violence favored by gangsters. The machine guns, the silencers and the sawed-off

shotguns. On their website.

Page – 10 – of 13Evan Nappen 36:04

There it is. So, they’re all about NFA, all about enforcing NFA.

Teddy Nappen 36:27

Yeah. We’ve got to combat gang violence.

Evan Nappen 36:30

You know, there is a movement to abolish the ATF. But there is some debate even among pro-gun

rights folks as to whether that is not necessarily a good idea. Here’s why. Because, arguably, if we

abolish ATF, it isn’t as if gun enforcement is going to go away. It’s just going to get shifted to another

agency, which itself might be very good, because maybe we have other agencies that could do a better

job. But in reality, if it’s just being defunded, continuously defunded, and the agency task no longer can

focus on just going after Second Amendment rights and causing all kinds of problems, as they did with

the Biden administration, then maybe having it limited to an agency that is not well funded might be

better. Might. I’m not saying it is. Just something to argue about and think about. It might be better than

completely disbanding it. Although in my gut, I would just like to see it disbanded. I know that, but it may

not necessarily be the best for protecting our gun rights, which is ultimately what I care about. I want to

see our rights protected and not oppressed. Well, Teddy, thank you for that update. That is very

interesting and thought provoking.

Evan Nappen 37:59

And speaking of thought provoking, here’s a quick thought provoking item I want to bring to my

listeners’ attention. This is out of “Not the Bee” again. Really funny. And this is where it was brought to

my attention. So, Neil deGrasse Tyson, who is a scientific physicist guy, and actually, I like a lot of his

stuff on physics and the universe. He’s very interesting with all that, but I believe he is left wing bent,

yeah. And unfortunately, you know, a guy that’s smart shouldn’t be that. But he did put this out, and I

just want to share this with everybody. He made the following post. (https://notthebee.com/takes/take-

neil-jesus-would-pick-the-ar-15)

Evan Nappen 38:48

So, Neil Tyson. Neil deGrasse Tyson posted the following. “Been thinking a lot lately about the morals

of Jesus of Nazareth.” Now, of course, he’s not. He’s the furthest thing from a religious guy. He’s a

science guy. Now, whether he actually, you know, what his position is on Jesus, I don’t know. But he

says he’s been thinking a lot about the morals of Jesus of Nazareth, and he’s wondering what his rifle

of choice would be if he moved to America. An AR-15 or an AK-47? So, moving to America, you know,

this is the underlying question, and what would Jesus’s choice be if it was between an AR-15 and an

AK-47. Now, both guns are excellent. I have nothing against either of those guns, but probably, just

probably, it would be the AR-15, only because it is the most popular rifle in America. You want to make

sure that the most popular rifle with all the great modularity and every type of accessory and

ammunition, accessibility and everything else about the AR that makes it so popular in America would

be the gun of choice for Jesus. And maybe you disagree with me, and that’s fine.

Evan Nappen 40:14

Page – 11 – of 13This is just thought provoking by him, but somebody did have a nice reply that I just want to share. I’m

not going to get into it. If you want to read more of the biblical quotation and review of weapons and the

Bible and defense, the B article has all kinds of things about that. But I just want to talk about this where

it says, and this is a reply to Tyson. “Obviously, Jesus didn’t need to carry a weapon (with a word he

could wipe out everyone on the planet), but I think he would tell his followers to get an AR-15, and if

they didn’t have one, to sell their cloaks and buy one.” That’s not a bad reply when you think about it.

So, there you go.

Teddy Nappen 41:03

I was waiting for someone.

Evan Nappen 41:06

To do what?

Teddy Nappen 41:08

I was waiting for someone to say, who would Jesus shoot?

Evan Nappen 41:12

No, that is a separate issue that Neil did not raise. So, we don’t want to go there, but what he did raise

is the debate about AKs and ARS. And, you know, it is thought provoking, but selling your cloak. You

know, the old for cloak to get a sword. But of course, modern day might, in America, in fact, be an AR.

I’m wondering why a gun shop or gun store doesn’t offer to give, you know, a credit, maybe $100 or

whatever they were thinking about, for anyone who turns in their cloak to buy an AR? They could have

a great special, a great promotion. You know, maybe around the holiday time. Get yourself a gun, and

we will give you a special discount, a special credit for donation of coats. The coats themselves could

then be donated to the charities that distribute clothing to those who are in need of clothing. You could

have folks literally turning cloaks into AR-15s. Of course, New Jersey compliant AR-15s. And if Jesus

was in New Jersey, his AR would still have to be compliant. There’s no Jesus exception under New

Jersey gun law. Unfortunately, that doesn’t exist either. So, there you go.

Evan Nappen 42:45

I have here a letter that I want to share. We love getting the letters. This is from Scott. Scott says, hi,

Evan. While transporting firearms in New Jersey, in addition to being cased and unloaded in the trunk,

does there have to be a lock on the case? Same question for ammo. So, under the exemptions for

transport, under subsection G., New Jersey only requires that the gun be unloaded and in a case that is

closed and fastened. It does not have to be locked. Now, if you want to have it locked, that’s great, but

New Jersey law doesn’t require that the case be locked. It does not require that ammo be locked either.

As a matter of fact, it just can’t be in the gun. You could, in fact, have your gun in a closed and fastened

case, have it completely empty, and you could fill the case with loose ammo all around the gun, as long

as the gun is unloaded and in a case. I don’t suggest you pour 50 rounds of ammo all around your gun

in the case. You don’t want to mess up your gun and all that. It’s dumb to do that, but it’s just to

illustrate the fact that New Jersey’s exemption, not to be confused with the federal for federal

preemption and other laws that restrict how you transport on airlines. We’ve talked about all that. Just

New Jersey’s exemption, if you’re solely relying on the exemption, does not require that it be locked

Page – 12 – of 13and it does not require that it be in the trunk. It has to be in a closed and fastened case or in the trunk.

Now, if you want to put your case in the trunk, that’s good. You’re hitting two but you only need to hit

one of the factors. So, unloaded and in a closed and fastened case gets you where you want to be. It

doesn’t have to be locked. But if you want to have it locked, you want to have it in a case, you have to

have it unloaded, and you want to have it in your trunk as well. That is all good. Belt and suspenders.

When it comes to New Jersey, maximize your protection.

Evan Nappen 44:53

And that brings us to the most popular segment in the show, which is the GOFU and that’s the Gun

Owner Fuck Up. And we love to talk about GOFUs Because GOFUs are mistakes that gun owners

make, that cost them dearly, that you get to learn for free. This week’s GOFU concerns an individual

where they were stopped by police. When they got out of the car, their gun fell out of their holster,

leading to an arrest. So, folks, what is the GOFU? Make sure you have a quality holster that maintains

your firearm securely in the holster. Now, it doesn’t mean it has to have a thumb snap or some other

type of device that retains it. There are designs to many holsters that do retain your firearm. There are

leather holsters that hold it fantastically without having to have a, you know, thumb snap or any of that.

Just make sure that the holster you use securely retains your firearm, particularly if you’re carrying in

New Jersey. Make sure that your holster complies with the requirements. The holster must completely

cover the body of the fireman, the trigger guard and secure it to your person.

Evan Nappen 46:18

This is Evan Nappen and Teddy Nappen reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens from

criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens.

Speaker 2 46:31

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.

Page – 13 – of 13

Downloadable PDF Transcript

Gun Lawyer S3 E238_Transcript

About The Host

Evan Nappen, 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 InnerCircle

Here’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.

---

By submitting this form, you are consenting to receive marketing emails from: . You can revoke your consent to receive emails at any time by using the SafeUnsubscribe® link, found at the bottom of every email. Emails are serviced by Constant Contact

var ajaxurl = "https://gun.lawyer/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php";