Episode 252-Adventures In Self-Defense Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode 252 Transcript

SUMMARY KEYWORDS

self-defense, home invasion, deadly force, criminal record, Illinois police, mother and baby, screwdriver, gloves, burglary, fear for life, carjacking, property vs life, defensive property, bear defense, Florida law

SPEAKERS

Speaker 2, Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen

Evan Nappen 00:15
Hello and welcome to Gun Lawyer. I’m Evan Nappen.

Teddy Nappen 00:20 And I’m Teddy Nappen.

Evan Nappen 00:23
Teddy, I want to talk to you about a couple interesting self-defense cases that have seemed to come up simultaneously, and they raise issues that, you know, you need to learn from. It’s something that any one of us might imagine going through these scenarios, and you should really think about how you want to react and what you’re going to do and what you shouldn’t do. Because remember, once that bullet leaves the barrel, you can’t call it back. You’re going to have to deal with the consequences, and you want to make sure that you end up justified in your use of deadly force, which is what we commonly call self-defense.

Evan Nappen 01:18
Yet, here’s a story, this is out of Blaze Media about a mother hiding from a home invader in a closet with her baby, and then she ends up shooting the thug in the head, police say. (http://www.jeroldlevine.com/criminalandweaponcases.html) So, this guy with a long criminal record apparently broke into the wrong home after discovering an armed mother. This is according to the Illinois Police. It occurred in Joliet and the Joliet PD said they responded to a residence on Hadrian Drive in the far west side of Joliet at about 10:30 p. They say they saw signs of forced entry at the home and found an unresponsive man on the second floor with gunshot injuries, and he was pronounced dead by paramedics. They also found a woman at the home with her baby, and the woman told the police that she hid in the closet of her bedroom with her child. At some point, the man came in the bedroom, and at that point, she shot him in the head. The police further say they found a screwdriver in the man’s possession, and he was wearing gloves at the time.

Evan Nappen 03:04
By the way, his name is Hurd, and he had been convicted of burglaries in 2022 and 2023 as well as identity theft and burglary in another county. He was paroled in February 2024. How nice. So, this character ends up basically picking the wrong house, and apparently only the mother and the child

Page – 1 – of 13

were the only people home at the time of the attempted robbery. So, here you have a home invasion. Arguably, he had a weapon. We don’t know if he threatened her with the weapon or not, but plainly, she was scared for her life. She barricaded herself and hid. She’s protecting her child. I cannot imagine that a prosecutor wants to put this case in front of a jury. I mean, seriously, a mother protecting her baby from some repeat offender breaking into the home. This is the kind of case where you see a lot of downsides if the state is even going to try to prosecute her, and it doesn’t say they are. Even though it’s in one of those blue cancer states of America, Illinois. Even in Illinois, I don’t think they want a jury with a mother and her baby hiding in fear in a closet, having to defend themselves against a break-in burglary with this guy.

Teddy Nappen 04:52
So, did they describe the guy who she had shot? Like, who?

Evan Nappen 04:56
Only that he had numerous priors and had been on parole and had his screwdriver in his pocket. Also, he was wearing gloves, so he wouldn’t, you know, obviously leave fingerprints. So, this is obviously a guy who’s a career criminal doing at least burglaries. It didn’t mention that he had violent convictions. But, nonetheless, maybe he never encountered anybody before.

Teddy Nappen 05:28
They would have let him out even if he had violent convictions.

Evan Nappen 05:30
Oh, well, of course, in that, in that, you know. Yeah, it’s always, let these folks out. And so, you know, I can see the justification. Although you know it might be able to be argued. We don’t know all the facts. That, you know, she’s gonna have to. What she’s gonna have to do, if she’s put to the task of having to do it. But I would think any decent attorney would be able to make this showing. That she was in absolute fear. Fear for her life. Fear for her baby’s life. Over this intruder who had forced entry come into her home, and prosecutors normally give more consideration when you’re defending your home than if you’re out on the street. Juries don’t have a lot of sympathy for people that break into homes. No less break into homes where you only have a mother and a baby hiding in fear.

Teddy Nappen 06:33
Unfortunately, the biggest issue is that they very much, the anti-gunners, have learned that, okay, we are losing the legal battle on people possessing firearms. So, we’re going to go after people to the tenth degree of the law, if you ever use that firearm. So, I would actually think they’re going to go after her because they want to make examples.

Evan Nappen 06:58
Well, you’re right that they want to do that, but this case would be so perilous for the state to embark upon. I can well see just an uproar, even in Illinois, over a mother defending herself and her baby. I just don’t think they would want to touch it, even though normally they love to prosecute law-abiding citizens who defend themselves.

Page – 2 – of 13

Teddy Nappen 07:24
It also depends on, it also depends on if the guy she shot was a Michael Jackson impersonator.

Evan Nappen 07:35
Well, this is going to be of great consideration, but it seems like he wasn’t moonwalking at the time. So, I think she’ll be okay here. But, you know, when you think about your own personal security, this is a reason why, if you’re a guy, you want your wife or significant other in the household to also be able to defend themselves in case of threats. And the best way is, you know, just take them to the range and break your loved ones in slowly with guns, You know, teach them safety. They may even end up really enjoying shooting on top of it. Then you’ll know that you’ll have a safer household. And you want to do it right. Maybe look to also get some professional training, where they can go into courses as well. It’s the kind of thing you should think about. Because these kind of stories, it could have went the other way. If this guy decided he didn’t want any witnesses and took care of them both with a screwdriver, you wouldn’t even hear about it. It wouldn’t even be a blip on the news anymore. So, this is one self- defense case.

Evan Nappen 09:01
Now, at the same time, there’s another case I saw that I thought was interesting. And this one, you know, the Babylon Bee is a parody site, and they have some hilarious, hilarious parodies. So, if you don’t, if you’ve never read a Babylon Bee or, I mean, just subscribe for free. They’re the funniest stuff. They send you emails of their parody stories, just hilarious. But they also have a news aggregate where they send out news called “Not the Bee”. So, these are stories that are very interesting. And sometimes you think, is this a parody? But it’s not. It’s “Not the Bee”. These are actually real things. Now this is not the least bit funny, the next story I want to tell you. But it does demonstrate where you have to understand the law regarding the use of deadly force.

Evan Nappen 09:56
In this case, from the Not the Bee, they talk about an Afghan vet getting 54 years in prison for killing a teen who tried to steal his wife’s car. Okay? (https://notthebee.com/article/vet-gets-54-years-in-jail-for- killing-black-teen-who-tried-to-steal-his-car-youre-gonna-want-to-read-this-one-if-you-carry-a-blaster- for-defense) This fellow’s name is Orest Schur, and he’s going to, apparently, spend over half a century in jail. He was an ex-Space Force Sergeant. He’s been sentenced to 54 years in prison for the fatal shooting. He was a 27- year-old sergeant in the U.S. Space Force, and the incident happened in July 2023. He lived in Aurora, Colorado, where he worked as a signals intelligence analyst at Buckley Space Force Base before transferring to the Space Force. He served two tours in Afghanistan with the U.S. Army, earning 14 service medals in the process. So, apparently, on July 5, 2023, about 11 pm, he woke up to the sound of alarm on his wife’s Hyundai Elantra. He grabbed his handgun and went outside. He saw two people dressed in black attempting to get in the vehicle. His wife called 911.

Evan Nappen 11:23
Now this apparently was the third attempted car theft at their home. Three times, the guy has gone through this garbage. So, you can understand he’s not real happy that this is happening again. But still, the use of deadly force, you don’t do it in anger. Okay? Then what happened was Schur confronted the individuals, but the carjackers fled in another car. Then the sergeant gave chase in his car and fired

Page – 3 – of 13

multiple rounds at the teens. The suspects, they’re driving a stolen Kia Rio, by the way. So, they’re already in a stolen car. They crashed like four blocks south of his home, and the two of them jumped out of the car. The sergeant continued shooting at them as they ran away on foot, and it turns out that the two were 13 and 14 year old black boys. That’s what the article says. Neither was armed. The older of the two, Xavier Kirk, died, and the younger of the two survived, despite taking a round to the back.

Evan Nappen 13:01
The judge sentenced Schur to 54 years in prison, 36 years for murder and 18 years for attempted murder. Now the person, the boy who survived, had this to say, and I quote. “An adult chose to use deadly force against two unarmed teenagers. That is not justice, that is not safety, that is that is not accountability. I survived, but I am not the same. My friend didn’t survive at all. And no matter what we did that night, I didn’t deserve to be shot, and Xavier didn’t deserve to die.” So, this is what is put forward.

Evan Nappen 13:45
So, folks, I’ve often tried to make it clear and drill it in to lawful defenders’ heads that there are three key things. Three important concepts that you always want to keep about your mindset. Number one is, do not ever use deadly force when you’re just talking about property. That’s all that was at stake here. A vehicle is property. Life wins over property! Do not use your gun strictly in defense of property. Now, if they had been armed or if they attempted to go after the sergeant and even take away his gun to use against him or anything like that, but there was no threat made against him. He wanted to stop these thefts, obviously. He was upset about it. He didn’t want these folks to get away, figuring they’re committing, arguably, felonies, car thefts, etc. I get what might have been running through his head, folks. But overriding all of it has to be, you know, life wins over property. You know, and hindsight is 20/20, but you better make it foresight on you as a defender right now. You don’t use your gun if it’s merely property. I don’t care if the lowest scumbag is stealing a suitcase with a million dollars of diamonds that’s yours. If there’s no threat against you, if there’s no weapon against you, if there’s no danger or threat of serious bodily injury or death being made against you, if it’s just someone stealing property, do NOT use your gun.

Evan Nappen 15:55
The other mindset you want to be in is you don’t want to be the troublemaker, the one that started it. If you are the instigator and started it, then you’re not going to be able to claim self-defense either. Now, in neither of these cases was either of the defenders the instigators, but that’s another issue I see. Don’t be the one that instigates the problem. And the final point, and most important point of all, is that if you’re going to use deadly force, to be justified in using deadly force, one of the key elements in the use of deadly force, the key word that has to remain, number one, that word is FEAR. You had better be in fear of serious bodily injury or death and that fear better be reasonable. Because it’s going to take a jury of 12 people to decide that your fear was reasonable and that fear was of death or serious bodily injury against you or another.

Evan Nappen 17:03
In the first case, I think that fear element is plainly there. It seems to be, and it seems like a jury, if they were to ever get it, are sure going to feel the fear of a mother and her baby with someone is an intruder

Page – 4 – of 13

forcing their way in. Therefore, you know, at best armed with a screwdriver, whether threatening or not. And you know that one, there’s a lot of fear there. But in the second one, not only was it just about property, but the threat, any threat, of serious bodily injury or death to him, evaporated the moment they took off in their car. No less, following them? And even when he went out there, there’s no indication that they were threatening him. They’re just running away. And look if they’re running away, then you let them run away. The police will investigate, and if they can catch them, great. And if not, oh, well. But that’s how it rolls with property. You can’t do what this Afghan vet did, and I feel sorry for the guy. I mean, he served his country. He did all these things, but our law doesn’t allow for that. So, beware.

Teddy Nappen 18:21
Yeah, kind of thinking along these lines. Because one of the biggest issues that people talk about, that’s one of the main reasons why, like one of the crackdowns in D.C. is about carjackings. Would there be a way to change the law to allow for justification?

Evan Nappen 18:40
Okay, so there’s a difference. There’s a difference between a car theft and carjacking.

Teddy Nappen 18:47 Yeah, car jacking.

Evan Nappen 18:48
No, no. See, carjacking means they are physically putting violence on you or threatening you with violence in the taking of your car. The violence aspect of the carjacking is where you may find the justified use of deadly force. That’s where it may, depending on the violence threatened or used. But just theft doesn’t have that element, and therefore you’re merely defending property, and that’s where it falls short.

Teddy Nappen 19:24
Well, that’s why I’m talking about maybe adding it. Would there be a way to either like Congress or even like the state legislator? Well, to the defense of property.

Evan Nappen 19:34
Okay. Yes, they could say that you could use deadly force in defense of property, but a lot of people would find that morally wrong. Because no matter what the property is, life is life, Teddy. Life is precious, regardless of whether people are wrongdoers or doing criminal acts that aren’t violent. So, you’re saying that we’re going to value property over life, and it’s not how we roll morally. That’s why the laws reflect that. Life wins over property. It’s also a morality that we want to embrace, because it is irreplaceable with life. Once the person’s dead, they’re dead. And, you know, the property, you can build a new home, you can buy a new car, you can put your insurance claim in. You can, you know, do all kinds of things, and even if you take a loss, well, it’s just money.

Teddy Nappen 20:33
I understand that, dad, but just kind of looking back, like, if someone who the whole light, like, kind of thinking of the West. It was a hanging offense for stealing a horse.

Page – 5 – of 13

Evan Nappen 20:44 Well, okay.

Teddy Nappen 20:45
Along that aligns of someone whose lifeblood, their job, everything comes from, like cars or property. Well, I think along those lines, like it’s one of those.

Evan Nappen 20:52
Well, the horse analogy is good, but here’s the difference.

Teddy Nappen 20:58
I know we’re not in the west.

Evan Nappen 21:00
In the west, a man’s horse, and we’re not living, and that’s what we don’t want, you know. A horse could literally mean life and death. You’re out, you know, on your horse in the west. But even the other thing was, you know, horse theft was, there was no, there’s no car lock on a horse. There’s no theft deterrence on a horse. I mean, cars can still be stolen, I agree, but it’s real easy to jump on a horse and take off. So, whatever reason, the morality of the day said, look, if you do that, you’ll die. It worked as a good deterrent. There was still horse thieves that did it anyway, yeah. But, you know, horse thieving of the Old West, it’s not our morality today of property over life. And look, even if someone today steals your horse, you can still get a new horse. I mean, just like other animals are property. Property is property, and we have this distinguishing line now. And look, I can be, I’m just as angry and upset if someone is a victim of theft. I get it. A theft victim, it’s terrible. I don’t want to be a victim of theft. I know nobody else does, either. But using deadly force on it is a whole other ball game.

Teddy Nappen 22:21
It’s one of those where just it feels. It’s just in that realm of, here’s a guy, a veteran, all those things, and then two criminals roll up to take his car. It’s been stolen multiple times. I understand life will always win over property, but it’s just one of those things. That’s the whole idea of that. It was deterrence. And that’s one of the things where there’s got to be something, some way to pivot that, to say, okay, stop. We’re gonna stop all these property thefts going up and down our country. Because then you give that rise to vigilantism. You give that rise to people who say I’m tired of this.

Evan Nappen 23:02
Well, it can happen. I mean, look, it’s a tough one, and it is morally very challenging. Because, yeah, theft is a crime, and no one wants to be a crime victim, whether it’s theft or assault or any of the other things. But I guess the difference is violent crime versus non-violent crime. We draw a line between defense against violent crime versus non-violent crime, and that’s how we have to live. So, look, whether those things can change, whether it can be modifications done to create other deterrence, whether there’s use of force that may be appropriate. That’s not for today’s discussion, but I tell you what? Everyone who’s listening just learn from these cases, because you don’t want to be that guy

Page – 6 – of 13

getting 54 years because you were stopping criminals that were attempting to commit felonies after you’ve been a victim of multiple thefts. It doesn’t justify it, and he’s paying the price.

Evan Nappen 24:15
Hey, however, on a interesting other note of self-defense, Florida has restored the right to defend against bears. That’s right. It’s by one of my favorite writers at AmmoLand, Dean Weingarten. (https://www.ammoland.com/2025/08/florida-restored-right-to-defend-against-bears-first-6-months-4- incidents/) He points out that Florida, under their great Governor DeSantis on June 21 of 2024, signed HB87, restoring the right of people to protect themselves, their pets, and their homes against aggressive black bears. And from July to December 2024, Florida Wildlife Control recorded four instances where people killed bears but were not charged because of the new state law. There were seven situations where people were charged with illegal kills in 2021. So, in terms of being pro-defense, absolutely, when it comes to bears. I’ve been, you and I, Teddy are both bear hunters. I was charged in a blind by a bear, as you know, and that was quite a hairy experience. The deal is, yeah, bears, you know, normally black bears are will avoid you. They won’t attack you. But, man, you run into a mother or a sow with cubs, you better watch out, or an aggressive alpha, you better watch out. And so look, if you defend yourself against bears in Florida because they’re aggressive, they’ve actually passed a law restoring that right to defense against aggressive bears. So, good job Florida. Glad to see it. Florida again taking the lead on allowing people to be defenders instead of victims, even against bears. I mean, that’s pretty good, man. Gotta like it.

Evan Nappen 26:34
Hey, if you want to be a defender and learn to do it right, you should check out WeShoot. WeShoot is an indoor range in Lakewood, New Jersey. It’s the range where Teddy and I both shoot and where we got our training, our certificates. We love WeShoot, and so will you. WeShoot has some cool stuff. As a matter of fact, today, Sunday, August, 24th, you know, our Gun Lawyer podcast drops every Sunday. Well today, Sunday, August 24 starting at 11 am until 4 pm at WeShoot, they’re having an Exotic and Luxury Car Show. They also will have their beautiful WeShoot girls, Julianna and Krystina, and they’re doing a meet and greet. You can get pictures with them, and you can see the amazing team of photographers do a photo shoot. You might be able to buy some of those cars, and there’s going to be food trucks, too. It sounds like a lot of fun. So, don’t miss it. August 24, today, from 11 to four. Go check out WeShoot when you’re there, check out the facilities. You’ll be very impressed. That is a great research resource right there in Lakewood, conveniently off the parkway. Great trainers, great people. Boy, I love the folks that we shoot, and so will you. They’re just the best.

Evan Nappen 28:05
And let me tell you about some special sales that WeShoot, just to alert you, in case you’re a bargain hunter and are looking for some really good guns. They have the Ruger Mark IV 22/45 Lite. It’s a lightweight .22 long rifle with a sleek, anodized finish, perfect for precision blinking and training with the signature mark four takedown system. And let me tell you, folks, I’ve had every version of a Ruger 22. I’ve had Mark ones, Mark twos, Mark threes and Mark fours. Up until the Mark IV, as much as I love the Ruger .22, what a pain in the ass putting it back together. Oh, my God. Ask anybody that’s ever had to take apart and put together those Ruger pistols. As reliable and wonderful as they are, that was always the part that sucked. But I’ll tell you what’s great, the Mark IVs. Oh my god, night and day difference.

Page – 7 – of 13

Push a button, boop, take down. It went from the toughest to the easiest. So, if you love the Ruger Mark series of the famous Ruger .22 semi-auto pistol, you need to get a Mark IV. It is the best. That’s all I use, man. When we go to the range, you want a great .22 shooter. That Mark IV is the perfect one. It’s so easy to clean, so easy to take down now, and it’s got that Ruger quality. And what’s cool about the 22/45 is it mimics the grip and hold and such of a 1911. So, if you’re a 1911 fan, you’ll love the 22/45. And Lite means it’s a little bit lighter weight. So, if you want to take your daughters or your kids or your spouse that may be smaller framed and not as strong, they’ll love shooting that pistol because it’s lightweight, accurate, fun and easy to clean. So, check out the Ruger Mark IV 22/45 Lite at WeShoot.

Evan Nappen 30:25
They also have a Colt Delta Elite. That’s a legendary 10 millimeter powerhouse in a 1911 form, built to handle high performance loads with Colt’s timeless styling and steel frame strength. Yeah, you want a really strong, tough 10. I love the 10. Ten millimeter is a great round. Get that Delta Elite you got, if you’re a 1911 fan and you want to shoot 10 Colt Delta elites, the best, right there. Can’t beat it. And we shoot, got him. Plus they have a Springfield Saint Victor. That’s the go to AR with OD green furniture and serious reliability, whether for home defense or hitting drills at the range. And of course, it is New Jersey compliant, because WeShoot wouldn’t sell anything that wasn’t. So, if you want to look at some great guns, go there and try them out. They have the range that you want to make sure you take advantage of. And they’re relaunching, by the way, WeShoot Studio. They’re doing all kinds of cool stuff with WeShoot Studio, from protecting freedom, preserving tradition and living the All American lifestyle. They have a fantastic online web store. Go to weshootusa.com, weshootusa.com, and check out WeShoot. Pay them a visit and tell them Evan sent you. You’ll be glad you did.

Evan Nappen 31:59
Let me also make sure I mention our good friends at the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs. They are the stalwart defenders of our Second Amendment rights in New Jersey, the umbrella organization of a multitude of gun clubs, putting a strong force in the face of Murphy and the Democrats Second Amendment oppression that they never seem to get enough of. We’re battling through the Association. They have a full-time paid lobbyist. They have multiple federal court challenges and actions taking place, fighting for our rights in New Jersey. We have a tough fight, but we have got a great group. You need to be a member of anjrpc.org, the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistols Clubs. Please make sure you belong and be part of the solution. They will send you email updates. You’ll be alerted to all the shenanigans taking place in Trenton. You’ll be alerted to the court fights that are being undergone, and you’ll be given the ability to send out instant, very simple messages right to legislators to know that we’re watching them and to oppose or support certain bills. It is an incredible tool. Make sure you’re part of ANJRPC as we fight for our rights through the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, anjrpc.org.

Evan Nappen 33:28
Let me not forget to shamelessly promote my book, New Jersey Gun Law, the Bible of New Jersey gun laws. It’s the one and only book that explains it all, all question and answer in a format that’s easy to understand. You will be glad you have it. It will help you get through the matrix of traps that New Jersey lays for law-abiding citizens. Go to EvanNappen.com and order your copy today, right there at

Page – 8 – of 13

EvanNappen.com yep, that’s my website. And when you get the copy of your book, scan the QR code on the front and for free, subscribe to my private database of subscribers. You’ll get email alerts from me, and you’ll be able to access the archive to get all updates, including the 2025 Comprehensive Update. All for free. I want your book to stay current. So, make sure you get your copy today at EvanNappen.com. Hey, Teddy. I’m looking forward to your Press Checks today. What do you have for us?

Teddy Nappen 34:38
Oh, stop me if you’ve heard this one.

Evan Nappen 34:41 Stop! Just kidding.

Teddy Nappen 34:43
Anytime, well, fair enough. All right, yeah, the whole thing. But as we know, Press Checks are always

free. So, every time the left and the gun rights oppressionists always push this stupid concept. “The Second Amendment only applies to muzzle loaders or firearms that were in the 1700s. It never was meant to apply for an assault firearm or machine guns. It was never even thought of that.”

Evan Nappen 35:16
I mean, repeating firearms weren’t included.

Teddy Nappen 35:19
I even remember, I think it was Brady, or whoever, that put out that stupid ad where it was someone committing a mass shooting with a musket. He was shooting, and he kills like three people, which, by the way, he still killed three people walking in by reloading. But you know, whatever. They always make that argument, and you know what I’m going to say looking back in history? Because, frankly, they don’t know history very clearly. There were examples of things beyond just simple muskets. But, you know, they don’t do their research because they actually don’t take the time to, you know, have one thought.

Evan Nappen 36:00
What repeating firearms have you found that existed, say, at the time of the Founding Fathers? Were there any?

Teddy Nappen 36:07
Well, let’s start with 1718 with James

Evan Nappen 36:11 1718!

Teddy Nappen 36:14 Yes, with the 18.

Page – 9 – of 13

Evan Nappen 36:15
You’re talking almost 60 years before our Declaration of Independence.

Teddy Nappen 36:23
Yes, you know, right before the Declaration of Independence, actually having the Puckle Gun. It was a pre-loaded cylinder which held 11 charges and could fire 63 shots in several minutes, nine shots per minute, and could be fired. And this is something that was actually used aboard British ships and would repel borders. And although it was never widely used, it was known at the time of the American Revolution, so already dispelling the left’s argument, like the Second Amendment was never applied for machine guns. Well, there hold my beer to James Puckle, because there was the Puckle Gun. Also there was the Ferguson rifle, a it was a Flintlock, but was breech loading. Ran at the standard muzzle loading rifle. It could fire up the several rounds per minute, two or three times faster than a muzzle loader, and it was light infantry. You can and could continue loading and firing without breaking cover, even when lying prone. And this was also used against the Americans by the British in 17 seven, kind of, right, those Brits in 1777. Oh, look on another one. Oh, this one you always love, the Giro Donny air rifle at the air

Evan Nappen 37:47
Yeah, went on the Lewis and Clark expedition, an air gun right

Teddy Nappen 37:54
Now. It came out in 1779. Oh, just right on the cusp. Well,

Evan Nappen 37:58
the Austrians actually used air guns that were repeat fire. And Napoleon said anyone caught with an air gun got death because they hated those air guns because they didn’t make the same they didn’t make smoke the way black powder did, and they could be used very effectively.

Teddy Nappen 38:21
It also had a detachable magazine with 19 rounds of ammunition, of

Evan Nappen 38:28
course. So, hey, in New Jersey, air guns are firearms.

Teddy Nappen 38:32
Yeah, so that’s an assault firearm with a high capacity magazine. Well,

Evan Nappen 38:36
Well, no, it’s not an assault firearm, because of the case I did. Coalition v. Florio, where we got air guns removed from the assault firearm law, even though they wanted them included, but based on federal preemption, we were able to take them out of that, and that saved a lot of people over the years. That case, that I did, because they still would charge people even with air guns as being assault firearm. Who’s

Page – 10 – of 13

Teddy Nappen 39:00
the Who’s your friend? The guy was a Navy aren’t who’s the one guy that does the RE, the reproductions of, like, Classic Firearms. I want them to market, well, air gun as a way for, as you know, for something you know, Teddy, you’re right. I what was,

Evan Nappen 39:14
I’d be very funny, of course, Val Forget, who’s deceased, but his son still has Navy Arms and you would Val, you know, imported and brought in black powder guns. And these were one of the he’s one of the early pioneers of establishing the market in terms of black powder firearms. But I actually wondered the same thing, Teddy, how come they don’t reproduce with modern materials, the Austrian military air rifle. I mean, that thing was powerful. It was incredible. It was used militarily. It’s an awesome gun. I don’t know why nobody makes a modern material copy of the Austrian. Uh, air rifle. That would really be cool. And, you know, maybe someday somebody will or of the a copy of the gun used on the Lewis and Clark expedition that you’re talking about that too, would be cool. And think about it. It made sense, because they were going into the wilderness. We’re gonna find gunpowder in the wilderness, but he always had air so with an air gun, an air rifle that could take down game, deer, etc, they could still hunt. So it was a really smart, forward thinking move to have hunting air gun. And it’s also not a bad idea for folks you know that want to prep today, there still are, today, high power air guns that can take game, small game, particularly the brake barrel air guns and other air guns. So you know, air guns can be a very potent tool in one’s survival plans. Absolutely

Teddy Nappen 41:03
and also just another reminder, because they always like the multi shot idea. Sure enough, the master, John dafta, had a revolver that had a snap, a snap on lock. It was made where it had a powder shelf drum almost looked like a striker, but smaller as a way, like a striker 12 shotgun, but was cylinder, but it used a flintlock level where it could hold the powder, massive cylinder that could hold and it was used. And sure enough, 1680 Yeah, so as revolvers. So you have revolvers, you have you have air guns that could had detachable magazines, machine guns.

Evan Nappen 41:51
And what about our, what about our favorite gun that that our buddy Patrick carried? Oh, yeah, Sharps. Sharps. Yeah, Richard Sharp’s good friend from where

Teddy Nappen 42:04
Mr. Knox, Knox, volley gun, the

Evan Nappen 42:07
knock. Volley, gun, yeah, they made a big play in that. What a great series. The sharps

Teddy Nappen 42:14
right under caught it right under. This is from the armors bench of 1770 the armors bench by the article detailed about Miss of Henry.

Page – 11 – of 13

Evan Nappen 42:27
What we what was the year of the knock volley gun? When did 1979 so Wow, 1779 still during the American Revolution, and it fired? Was it seven? I think at least seven or eight. I forgot how many, but all it would fire all at once. And it was originally made with the idea of, if you were on ship, and you would be up on the mast, and when you were going to board, you could fire the volley gun onto the deck of the other ship, putting a spray of bullets down on the on the enemy. And yet, of course, it was quite a heavy gun. But in the series, Patrick is a big, tough, strong Irishman that you know, carries that gun like it’s a carbon fiber AR15, you know, not a problem, yeah,

Teddy Nappen 43:22
yeah. And it’s seven shots going in at once, which, by the way, for people that they’re always saying he could reload and had more shots, imagine spraying the entire group of people like it’s anytime they try to make the argument point to history that is the only way

Evan Nappen 43:40
to win. Henry knock was quite a prominent British gun maker. And you know, I showed you, I have a Henry knock pistol made by Henry knock his stuff was really cool, but that volley gun was really an interesting piece.

Teddy Nappen 43:56
But if anyone wants to, they can check out the armors bench. They did a great article talking about the knock volley gun. And then from the Arizona independent, where they is by Jonathan Dumas, where he talked about these various examples, trying to dispel this whole argument that the left always makes. And here I have a test for you, Dad. Do you have this book British military firearms from 1650 to 1850 by Blackmore printed 1961.

Evan Nappen 44:28
I believe I do. As a matter of fact, you probably grabbed it out of my library, didn’t you? Put it back!

Teddy Nappen 44:34
No, no, that’s the one they cited to, but I was curious if you actually.

Evan Nappen 44:40
Well, Teddy, I appreciate the interesting historic facts about repeating arms and again, dispelling the lie of the propaganda media that never ceases to lie. And why don’t we go? Repress our rights, also

Teddy Nappen 45:02
Also, from the Military Review, Matthew Elmers, who did another great article detailing the historical revolvers, like the early revolvers.

Evan Nappen 45:10
Well, this is going to be, it’s of more and more importance under the Bruen decision by, you know, Saint Thomas there, where we have to show the historical text and tradition, and when it comes to repeating firearms, there’s a good history of it. So, this should even be helpful in the coming federal challenges.

Page – 12 – of 13

But now let’s go to the segment that everybody loves, and that is the GOFU. That’s the Gun Owner Fuck Up. And why do we talk about GOFUs? Because these are expensive lessons that other gun owners have experienced. So, you get to learn for free. And I just want to hammer home on a primary GOFU that I see a lot, and it has to do with people waiving their rights. Oh, my God. Anytime I get a call from somebody and they didn’t stand on their rights, they consented to a warrantless search. Why??? They were, even after being Mirandized, they talk to the police and don’t ask for a lawyer. Folks, this is so basic and so simple. If you’re ever read Miranda, shut the fuck up and say, I want my lawyer. I want to talk to my lawyer. Miranda is the end of the line. If you’ve been read Miranda, you’re done. Just shut up.

Evan Nappen 46:52
Now, you shouldn’t be talking anyway. You have no obligation to speak or to answer questions. Your fallback always has to be, I want my lawyer. Let’s talk to my lawyer. I’ll do whatever my lawyer says. Talk to my lawyer. Always put your lawyer between you and the Government. Anytime the Government wants to get in your life, put your lawyer between you and them. Because as your lawyer, I can’t convict you, put evidence against you, or be used and twisted against you. But anything that comes out of your lips, it can be used in that way. And I can then find out, talk with the officers, and then I can talk with you, and that’s what smart people do. So, don’t be the GOFU where you gave up your rights. Please think of all the men and women who sacrificed for those rights. We’re blessed to have them. Don’t give them away. Ask for your lawyer. Remain silent. Don’t consent to any searches without specific advice from your lawyer that you’re going to be asking for.

Evan Nappen 48:18
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 48:29
Gun Lawyer is a Counter Think Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. 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 TranscriptGun Lawyer S3 E252_Transcript About The HostEvan 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 

• talkback@gun.lawyer

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";