Episode #2090- Hammer and Nigel Full Show

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hammer and Nigel. You believe these characters are weirdos.

Speaker 2 (00:03):
So let.

Speaker 3 (00:06):
I believe it was the rock band Europe that once said,
and I quote, it's the final countdown, do Do Do
Do Do Do Do Do Do? Just a few days
left in twenty twenty five. I'm Jason Hammer, Big Nige
enjoying week number six of vacation because I guess that's okay.

(00:29):
Guy Relford writing Shotgun with me today, I see what
you did there. I make that joke every time, and
God bless you. You like the grandkids that always laugh
at the joke that Grandpa tells at Christmas when you're little,
every time, and you play along, My friend, I like it.

Speaker 1 (00:45):
How was the big Christmas extravaganza?

Speaker 4 (00:48):
That was good? Man? We hosted and uh, it was
extra special. My son and daughter in law and their
three kids from Denver, they've been out there for quite
some time. They were in town and got to see
all three of those grandkids, and so it was. It
was awesome. It was fun. We had a good one.
Did you enjoy? I saw some pictures from you and

(01:09):
Crystal's Christmas on Christmas and it looked awesome too.

Speaker 3 (01:13):
Yeah, man, kids, you know I say kids, they're all
legal adults now.

Speaker 1 (01:17):
My youngest is officially you know, eighteen.

Speaker 3 (01:19):
But no, it was great and all as well, and
it was like sixty degrees. Yeah, but now you walk
outside and look, it's been colder, right, guy, you've lived
in Indie longer than you know most people. I've grown
up here, it's been colder. But when you have like

(01:40):
sixty four degrees yesterday and then you walk out to
your car the next morning and everything's frozen, it just
feels colder, right because of the way that it was yesterday,
one hundred percent.

Speaker 4 (01:52):
I was I was smoking wings yesterday out on the
deck in short short and I went out this morning
and it was fourteen degrees. I mean that's Indianapolis for you.

Speaker 3 (02:03):
Yeah, Like we've had polar vortex and we've had you know,
windshills where it's like minus forty.

Speaker 1 (02:10):
It's been colder.

Speaker 3 (02:12):
But when you're outside in shorts, like we took down
all the outdoor Christmas decorations yesterday, and it's like, hey,
let's take advantage while the weather's pretty nice here, and
you walk outside today, it just smacks you in the face,
like Mother Nature just giving you the old stone Colt
Steve Austin double middle fingers.

Speaker 4 (02:30):
Well, yeah, because fourteen degrees wasn't enough. We had to
compound that with what forty to fifty mile an hour
winds too right to go right through you. Yeah. No,
it hasn't been fun today.

Speaker 3 (02:40):
So the winds have calmed down just a little bit.
Should not see any more delays at the airport. There
were a number of delays this morning, and temperatures are
still going to be pretty cold. But I think we've
gotten through the worst part of this whole thing. All right, guy,
I want to get your attention here. This bill, Senate

(03:01):
Bill number sixty two, feels like this has got an
opinion from Guy Relford written all over it.

Speaker 4 (03:06):
Here.

Speaker 1 (03:08):
So there's a proposed.

Speaker 3 (03:09):
Bill at the twenty twenty six Indiana State House General Assembly.
It's called Senate Bill sixty two, and it addresses kids
illegally having guns, which last time I checked, I thought
that was already illegal. But this deals with the youth
problem of them acquiring weapons.

Speaker 1 (03:30):
Some say it could deter youth gun violence.

Speaker 3 (03:34):
Others say this is going to make more stiff consequences
for those who get busted with guns and hoping that
that message gets across the inner cities. So this problem
kind of dies down a little bit here. I guess
if I'm understanding this correctly, guy, the whole premise behind
Senate Bill sixty two more severe consequences for those underaged

(04:00):
firearms your thoughts.

Speaker 4 (04:01):
Yeah, and listen, this is something that's going to get
my immediate attention when I saw this thing filed, because
you know, you talk about kids and guns. I mean,
some people immediately think of, well, we you know, delinquent's
running around downtown Indianapolis, you know, shooting a place up
and then not suffering any consequences like the fourth of July, right, yeah, Well,

(04:24):
and how many other incidents do we see and we
know that there are there are gang members who will
go out and they have the gang members who are
under eighteen carry their guns. Well, you know, because they'll
know they know that if they even get caught, they
won't suffer many consequences and won't get an adult conviction,
won't go to jail. If anything, they get adjudicated delinquent

(04:46):
to the juvenile justice system. My immediate concern when people
start talking about kids and guns is, wait a minute,
are we protecting you know, the twelve year old who
wants to begin shooting sporting plays or the fourteen year
old who wants to come take one my classes, I mean,
are going to Are we doing a good job of
separating those issues and making sure we have protection for

(05:07):
young people who want to get involved in the shooting
sports or otherwise, you know, go to the range with
dad versus you know, criminals who are out shooting up
Indianapolis and other cities around the state. And I have
to say and listen, this was filed by Senator Greg Taylor.
We've talked a lot about Greg Taylor. I think you've
had him as a guest on your show if I
recall correctly, and he and I have a long history.

(05:30):
When I go into as I do every year to
argue for pro Second Amendment bills in the General Assembly,
when we end up in committee in the Senate, then
Greg Taylor and I are always going to go back
and forth for a long period of time because he's
always opposing whatever it is that I'm fighting for on
the protection of Second Amendment rights. And as much as
that pains me to say I agree with something, Senator

(05:51):
Taylor has filed, this one actually makes some sense. To me,
because what this is saying is that if you're unlawfully
carrying a gun as a juvenile, now you can much
more easily be prosecuted as an adult. It can get
waved into adult court, and we can start getting some
of these juveniles who are criminally carrying guns in places

(06:13):
like Indianapolis and Gary in South Bend and Fort Wayne
and Evansville and others. We can start getting some of
these people off the street. And it's not a get
out of gl free card just to be a juvenile
even though you're illegally carrying a gun and committing a
crime with those guns. That's what this is directed to,
and that makes some sense to me.

Speaker 3 (06:30):
And looking a little further into what is proposed and
Senate Bill sixty two harsher penalties if the offense happens
within five hundred feet of school property or on a bus.

Speaker 4 (06:43):
Yeah, see that's already built into the unlawful possession of
a gun statute there. Basically it's a misdemeanor if you
are prohibited from possessing a firearm but are caught carrying
a handgun, for instance, called unlawful carrying of handgun. But
that goes up to a felony if you're within five

(07:03):
hundred feet of a school on a school bus and
under some other circumstances. What we're doing now is we're
including those enhanced penalties for a juvenile who's illegally carrying
a gun, and once those felony charges are potentially levied
against them again, that can get waved into adult court
so they don't get the slap on the wrist in

(07:26):
the juvenile justice system. So even as a defense attorney,
I still understand what this is trying to accomplish, and
it really does make some sense.

Speaker 3 (07:34):
Guy Reelford filling in for big knowledge, and we'll have
some more in depth analysis coming up when we do
Monday Gun Day here in just a few minutes, because
there was a big decision today. But before we do that,
and before we hit a traffic break with Matt Bher,
I've got some good news. Our charity bowling event, Red
White and Bowl presented by Jack Daniels January sixteenth at

(07:59):
Woodland Bowl is officially sold out.

Speaker 4 (08:05):
There we go.

Speaker 1 (08:07):
That's what I'm talking about. Now.

Speaker 3 (08:10):
If you did not get tickets, relax, I'm being told
we may be giving away a few on the air
next week possibly, so stick around for that. But yeah, man,
you guys bought these things up quickly, and if you

(08:31):
bought your tickets, trust me, we are going to have
a good time. Thank you so much, and we're gonna
raise a lot of money for some Hoosier veterans in
need as well. Red White, and Bowl presented by Jack Daniels.
January sixteenth, Woodland Bowl sold out, but a little birdie
told me we might have some tickets to give away soon.

Speaker 1 (08:54):
Matt Bear, you was listening to The Hammer and Nichel Show.

Speaker 3 (08:59):
Getting closer and closer to a brand new year, which
means this is the time of the season.

Speaker 1 (09:06):
We take a look back. It's the Hammer and Nigel Show.

Speaker 3 (09:10):
I'm Jason Hammer, Big Nige's out Guy Reelfort's filling in
and join us in studio from the WIBC newsroom.

Speaker 1 (09:18):
The Lovely John at Cruse. How are you?

Speaker 5 (09:21):
I'm good, how are you?

Speaker 3 (09:22):
They're not booing, they're saying crews. So today, tomorrow and Wednesday,
you're doing a little three piece exclusive on our program,
looking back at the biggest stories of the year. Now
tomorrow we'll focus nationally. We'll do some pop culture entertainment
stuff on Wednesday, but today it's the five biggest stories

(09:46):
to happen here in Indiana.

Speaker 5 (09:49):
Yes, and I said this during commercial break. I couldn't
believe it that our five local stories are national stories.

Speaker 6 (09:56):
True.

Speaker 1 (09:57):
Crazy to me, mate headlines all over the country.

Speaker 7 (10:00):
I'm not.

Speaker 5 (10:00):
I didn't order this in any specific order however, just
more chronological order as the year progressed. So the first
thing I do want to mention is obviously the passing
of Jim Ersay. He passed away at the age of
sixty five back on May twenty.

Speaker 3 (10:12):
First, I remember that I was at the ac DC
concert in Nashville with one of my sons and were
in between bands. The opening act had just finished and
kind of scrolling on our phones and my phone started
blowing up. Ersay died, ersa died. I thought it was
a hoax, like some sort of AI thing, but no,
it was.

Speaker 4 (10:32):
It was legit.

Speaker 5 (10:33):
Yeah, it was a really big deal. And then I
actually went to the Colts game. It was back on
September seventh, when they honored him as well into the
Ring of Honor, and so I thought that halftime was
just absolutely amazing and just the energy that you felt
in there and for how the city just absolutely loved
and adored him.

Speaker 3 (10:49):
And there had been some rumors about the health of
Jim long before he officially passed. Yes, but it looked like,
at least in terms of the public perception, you know,
things were going to be okay.

Speaker 1 (11:02):
Maybe the worst was behind him.

Speaker 3 (11:04):
You know, there was that interview he did or he
talked about how he almost died at his house one
night and paramedics had to arrive. But then when we
found out the Jim Mersey did indeed pass away, it
was still sad. Like a lot of people thought, well,
it's not surprising he did some hard living, but for
what he's done to the community, the charities and all

(11:25):
that kind of stuff, say what you want about Jim,
but he cared about Indianapolis, see.

Speaker 4 (11:30):
And that's why I was really excited about the coverage,
or at least maybe relieved is a better word than excited,
because with the struggles that he did have in his
personal life and with his health and even yes, with addiction,
the coverage that I thought immediately after he passed was
really focused where it should be, which is where on
his contributions to the community, what he really meant not

(11:53):
just to the Colts, but to this whole city and
to a lot of excellent causes that he supported. I
really liked the way that ended up getting portrayed, including
at the national level.

Speaker 5 (12:03):
Yeah, absolutely, I agree too. It was some good, good
things that were put out.

Speaker 3 (12:07):
Now, if we're doing chronological order here, I just again,
I remember where I was when I heard about Jim Ursay.
Also taking place that night was a very high profile
Indiana Pacers game against the New York Knicks, and that
happened to be I think the same night where Haliburton
hit the three that bounce us up, bounces.

Speaker 1 (12:27):
Up and finally goes down. He gives the choke signal.

Speaker 3 (12:31):
I assume the Pacers run is probably number two on
the sea.

Speaker 5 (12:34):
Yes, it is on this list. It is number two.
And I was actually at the watch party when we
were doing Game seven, and I was at Gainbridge, and gosh,
when he just fell to the ground like you could,
it was the silence was deafening, and the faces of
everybody just watching it all on their screens and we
just stood there like, oh my gosh.

Speaker 3 (12:56):
Because the Pacers came out smoking, Haliburton came out smoking fire.

Speaker 1 (13:00):
They were going to win that game.

Speaker 4 (13:01):
That was going to be our game, no question.

Speaker 5 (13:03):
It was absolutely.

Speaker 3 (13:04):
Pacers were not scared, they were ready, and the basketball
gods just kicked us right in the crotch.

Speaker 1 (13:09):
John in steel toe boot right to Big Gym and
the Twins. John.

Speaker 5 (13:13):
Oh, it was the worst. I was so sad.

Speaker 3 (13:16):
So we're doing the top five biggest stories in Indiana
in twenty twenty five.

Speaker 1 (13:20):
What else is on your list?

Speaker 5 (13:21):
All right? Number three? I got Mark Sanchez all on
October third when he was arrested for that awful incident.

Speaker 1 (13:30):
I was a day after my birthday.

Speaker 3 (13:33):
It could have been downtown the same time as Mark
Sanchez Shenan Against were taking place.

Speaker 4 (13:37):
Wow, and Sanchez was still celebrating, Yes he was.

Speaker 1 (13:41):
He went hard that night. Apparently we have an update
on Mark Sanchez today.

Speaker 5 (13:46):
Yes, exactly. So now Fox Corporation is trying to move
the civil lawsuit to federal court instead of handling it
in the state. And so what I've gathered from, you know,
seeing what's coming out of the news outlets and everything
else today is because of the whole reasoning on they
don't they feel as though they might have some sort
of bias in the state of Indiana When it comes

(14:06):
to the civil lawsuit, that was one of the reasons,
and then they I guess in they're thinking for a
federal lawsuit, everything might go a little bit quicker instead
of the criminal lawsuits or the trial that's going to
be taking place, and I believe it's in March, I'm
not mistaken. And then possibly the payout might be differently.
I think there's a lot of aiables. You can probably
speak into that a little bit more.

Speaker 4 (14:26):
Yeah, if you're defending a big time lawsuit in county court,
state court, but it's filed obviously in through the county system,
you'd much rather be in federal court for a variety
of reasons. First of all, your Drew Pool comes out
comes in throughout the entire district, not just Marion County
or Hamilton County or wherever you might be filed. The

(14:48):
protections tend to be much higher in terms of discovery
and any number of different pre trial issues you're going
to face leading up to that. So typically in a
big time lawsuit, all always want to be in federal
court if you possibly can be.

Speaker 1 (15:02):
Got a couple of minutes left here, what's number four?

Speaker 5 (15:05):
Number four is the White Town shooting that took place
in November, so we know that that went huge national international.

Speaker 3 (15:13):
Where the individual thought he heard a noise, thought he'd
heard somebody breaking in fired shots, ended up being a
cleaning lady who was lost.

Speaker 1 (15:24):
Might not have spoke English.

Speaker 3 (15:25):
Now the elephant in the room is guy, We know
this is your clients. We know you can't really talk
about this situation, but sure it's no secret you've mentioned
to us that is your client.

Speaker 4 (15:35):
Here.

Speaker 1 (15:36):
Is there any updates on a timeline here?

Speaker 4 (15:39):
Well, no, we've got a court appearance in February and
right now a March trial date. I can say that,
but it's unlikely that March trial date will hold as
a first setting. There's a lot to do in that case.
But one thing that you know, as in any case,
people just need to keep an open mind until they
hear all the evidence.

Speaker 5 (15:57):
Right and number five, number five redistrict dead redistricting, that
was like the topic for the entire second half of
the year. I feel like, well, probably started way before then,
but man.

Speaker 3 (16:07):
What's property tax ended? And we ended up getting the
shaft on that. We had to wait for the news storyline,
which was going to be the changing of the congressional
math goshcause I have a hard time saying redistricting, so
I always say the changing of the math great.

Speaker 5 (16:22):
The amount of times I had to re record myself
doing a news story because of that word is absolutely insane.
And I tell you from the news perspective in the
newsroom side, every time there was an update, and every
time we got an email, we were all just like,
oh my gosh, what now, what do we have to
change now? What's coming in now? It was just constantly,
it was always something something different coming down the pipeline
where we have to continue to update everybody on.

Speaker 3 (16:44):
So well, Johnette, you'll join us again tomorrow and we'll
look at the top five national stories.

Speaker 5 (16:50):
Here we go, Top five National Johnette.

Speaker 3 (16:52):
Cruise from the WIBC news room. Make sure you follow
her on all of the social media channels.

Speaker 1 (16:57):
Thank you, thank you. The only way to bag a
classy lady is to give her two tickets to the
gun show.

Speaker 4 (17:05):
Monday, Gun Day with the gun Just.

Speaker 6 (17:08):
Watch up with the guns.

Speaker 1 (17:10):
They'll get to guy, stop calling your arms.

Speaker 8 (17:13):
Gun you ever show.

Speaker 1 (17:16):
It's a tradition unlike any other.

Speaker 3 (17:20):
This time every Monday, we sit down with the best
two a attorney in all of America Firearms instructor, attorney
and host of the Gun Guys Show, Guy Raelford, how.

Speaker 4 (17:32):
Are you, man? I am great, and thanks as always
to our sponsor for Monday Gun Day. That's Premiere Arms
in Brownsburg, the largest selection of new use and historic
firearms in the Midwest and Pa Drews located in the
farmhouse right out front. Check them out at three seven
and fifty four South Green Street in Brownsburg or Premiere
Arms dot com.

Speaker 3 (17:49):
So we're gonna have a little retrospective of the year
and two a here in just a little bit. But
before we do that, we had some big news for
gun owners earlier this morning.

Speaker 4 (18:00):
Yeah, this is actually a big deal. There's been this
ridiculous lawsuit that has been pending for literally decades and
it's City of Gary versus Glock and then a whole
bunch of other manufacturers where it's the City of Gary
filed this lawsuit many many years ago saying that it's
not really Gary's fault that they have a crime problem.

(18:22):
It's gun manufacturers and dealer's fault.

Speaker 3 (18:26):
They have a crime problem in Gary, like something the
State of Illinois would say, it's not our gang members,
it's those evil two way supporters in Indiana.

Speaker 4 (18:34):
That is exactly right, and the people who actually produce
the firearms and sell the firearms. So for instance, you know,
if somebody drives drunk, you ought to be able to
sue Chevrolet. I mean literally, that's the theory. And so
the legislature has been trying to provide immunity from this
kind of silly lawsuit for a long long time. We

(18:56):
passed the state version of federally what we call Protection
of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, And it's an immunity
to say, if you lawfully sell a firearm, or lawfully
manufacture and sell a firearm, and that firearm is then
used in a criminal act, then a person injured by

(19:16):
that can't sue you, or in this case, the City
of Gary can't sue on behalf of people who have
been injured by firearms. If what you did to legally
manufacture and or sell a firearm was legal when you
did it, it's then used in a criminal act, you
have immunity from any liability associated with that manufacturer or sale.

(19:38):
And most people when they hear that law, they say, well,
of course you do. I mean, who would ever file
such a stupid lawsuit.

Speaker 3 (19:44):
But unfortunately that files stupid lawsuits every day, trust.

Speaker 4 (19:47):
Me, absolutely, and that's why both at the federal level
in Indiana at the state level, we have this immunity statute.
And what's happened is the courts have been reluctant to
just throw this thing out. And so the why is that.

Speaker 3 (20:03):
Is it activist judges like anti gun judges, or is
there some other issue.

Speaker 4 (20:09):
That's primarily it. I think it's mostly judges bending over
backwards to find some excuse to not dismiss the lawsuit.
They don't want to feel like they're sighting on behalf
of God forbid the Second Amendment, or you know, these
evil gun manufacturers and sellers, right, I mean, that's the
liberal view of things far too often. In addition, there
was an argument that the statute was passed with an

(20:33):
intent that to be applied retroactively and that there's always
going to be a potential constitutional issue with that. But
this what the latest amendment did is it said, listen,
a lawsuit like this can potentially be filed, but only
by the state. The state can look at this and say,
hold on, someone's committing a legal activity within the state.

(20:54):
Somebody's hurting our taxpayers here, costing US Medicare payments for instance,
potentially Medicaid. Therefore, the state can file the lawsuit, but
private parties or municipalities cannot. And that's what got this,
That's what got this dismissed finally. It looks like and listen,
this is the Indiana Court of Appeals that ruled this.

(21:15):
So all they can do now is potentially try to
take it to the Indiana Supreme Court and then I
guess theoretically the US Supreme Court. But for now, this
silly lawsuit that's been hanging on by a thread for
a long long time, literally for decades, despite the best
efforts in the Indiana General Assembly to get rid of it,
has finally been dismissed. And it's been too long coming.

Speaker 3 (21:36):
You know, to the average person that doesn't have a
law degree or anything like that, it seems ridiculous that
frivolous lawsuits, and that's what I think.

Speaker 9 (21:47):
This was.

Speaker 3 (21:47):
A frivolous lawsuit gets stuck in the court system for
so long.

Speaker 4 (21:52):
Yeah, and this went on. I mean literally it's something
like thirty five forty years. Ridiculous. It's been a long
damn time. But that's even that even fed into it
because that argument has been well, we filed the lawsuit
and then all these changes to the law happened, that
shouldn't apply to us. So the legislature has been trying
to work around that to protect lawfully. Again, people say, oh, no,

(22:15):
you know the evil sellers are knowingly selling guns to criminals.
Well then it doesn't apply. It's only if you manufacture
or sell a gun legally do you have protection under
this statute that's being applied here, legally being the key word,
legally being the key word. So the bad actors, you know,
the gun shops that want to sell to criminals or
sell without background checks, they have no protection from this.

(22:37):
You have to legally, you know. And again and and
if is there a more highly regulated industry than the
gun industry, and you know, a gun shop, you wouldn't
believe the regulations these people have to comply with. But
unless you can tag them off base on something that
they did illegally, then this statute provides them protection. And
I'm really glad to see the Indiana Court of Appeals
ruled accordingly.

Speaker 1 (22:57):
It's Monday Gun Day with the gun guy, Guy.

Speaker 3 (23:00):
Relford here with us all right, So as we get
closer to a brand new year, we're taking a look back.
We're looking back at the biggest stories in Indiana, the
biggest stories nationally, and with you being the two a expert,
let's take a look back at the biggest stories in
the world of the Second Amendment in twenty twenty five.

Speaker 4 (23:19):
Yeah, I'll tell you what I think. The number one
thing is that with President Trump coming into office and
taking over in the White House, he undid a lot
of the executive orders that President Biden had put in place.

Speaker 1 (23:31):
And some of these were the auto pen put into place.

Speaker 4 (23:34):
Or the auto that great point. Yeah that some unknown person,
uh you know, put President Biden's signature too. But and
and and these these may not have gotten a lot
of fanfare, but they were devastating to a lot of people,
and especially people in the gun industry. For instance, the
Biden administration announced what they were called they called their

(23:55):
zero tolerance policy for gun dealers. And it's really relates
to what we were just talking about. But this has
to do with the idea that the Biden administration instructed
the ATF that regulates the gun industry to say, if
you find a gun dealer who has any minor transgression whatsoever.

(24:15):
You know, a document wasn't dated the right way, or
the form wasn't kept in the right form or kept
in the right chronological order, or otherwise consistent with federal regulations.
We have a zero tolerance policy now, and you should
do anything and everything you can do to put those
gun dealers out of business.

Speaker 3 (24:33):
Where the hell was that badassory at the border when
cartels and drugs and gang members were coming across left.

Speaker 4 (24:39):
And right exactly right? Or you know, more recently, you
know medicaid medicare fraud, right, I mean right? Where was
the oversight? But what this was, it was just an
excuse to try to put lawful businesses out of business.
And I had buddies who owned gun shops to say, Man,
I'm thinking about, you know, giving it up, because I
have these people breathing down my neck. They're putting me

(25:00):
under a microscope at every opportunity, trying to put me
out of business. And Trump, when he came in, issued
executive orders that completely undid that, and that's huge. In
addition to the Department of Justice, we went from having
Kamala Harris in charge of the so called White House
Office of Gun Violence Prevention. Remember that. Oh yeah, So

(25:21):
we had Kamala and her underlings looking again at ways
to attack lawful gun nunners, attack the gun industry. That
was disbanded again in twenty twenty five, and instead, President
Trump created the Second Amendment Task Force within the Department
of Justice, and it's their job now to go out
and look for opportunities to promote and protect the Second Amendment.

(25:42):
And in fact, you're just recently pursuing to that development.
We had the Department of Justice file its own lawsuit
in the District of Columbia seeking to have the DC
gun ban assault weapon ban quote unquote set aside as unconstitutional.
But so think about this for a moment, and there
have been a lot of lawsuits across the country alleging

(26:05):
that any assault weapon ban quote unquote at the state
level or local level is unconstitutional. This one recently filed
by the Department of Justice. Just that it was filed
by the federal government. And think about how different that
is than the Biden administration or the Obama administration doing
anything and everything they could to attack your Second Amendment rights.

(26:25):
Now we actually have the United States Department of Justice
filing its own lawsuit to set aside an assault weapon ban.
That's huge. That's a big deal.

Speaker 3 (26:33):
And it seems like whenever you have these administrations or
groups that are hell bent on having gun control of subkind,
it has the adverse effect because more and more people
start saying, well, you know what, maybe I better go.

Speaker 1 (26:49):
Get my firearm.

Speaker 3 (26:50):
Maybe you know, I've never had a gun before, but
I want to go get one now because I don't
like the way you guys are talking over here. It
feels like it backfires when they try to do this.

Speaker 4 (27:00):
Yeah, well, and that's exactly what's happened, because we keep
setting records year after year after year for gun sales,
and that's that's been a trend for some time.

Speaker 3 (27:09):
It's continued, and these are legal, you know, everything's done
right gun.

Speaker 4 (27:14):
Sales well, because they're measured by background checks performed by
the FBI as part of a gun sale. So that's
how they track them, is that they're legal sales. And
what's interesting is those numbers continue to go up and
up and up more and more states. We're up to
twenty nine, almost thirty. If North Carolina can overturn a
veto by their governor, will have thirty states that have

(27:35):
passed constitutional carry, which is permitless carry. And guess what
the murder rate is doing a year after year here
just recently, it keeps plummeting every year. In fact, twenty
twenty five maybe twenty percent lower than twenty twenty four
and set a record on per capita in terms of
the lowest murder rate we've seen when more and more

(27:55):
and more Americans not only are buying guns, but they
are carrying guns in public. What's I tell you?

Speaker 3 (28:00):
And now you've got liberal journalists and we see this
here in Indiana trying to spend themselves into a pretzel saying, well,
these justifiable homicides are still homicides, like we've seen that here.

Speaker 4 (28:13):
Oh they're bemoaning that. They're going, oh my goodness.

Speaker 1 (28:16):
They would rather have you be murdered than defend yourself.

Speaker 4 (28:19):
Yeah, I mean, I understand Ryan Meers can't get a
conviction off a homicide because it turns out to be
a justifiable homicide. Well, why aren't we cheering that, saying,
wait a minute, the good guy won here. Why aren't
we happy that this innocent homeowner or innocent person on
the street who was the intended victim of a violent
crime on the street. Why aren't we cheering the fact

(28:42):
that they won right and the bad guys dead and
not the good guy. But yeah, you hear, you hear
people like Russ McQuaid and Ryan Meers bemoaning that fact
when in fact, illegal homicides are plummeting because more Americans
and including more Hoosiers, have the legal capacity, legal right
to defend themselves, including in public.

Speaker 3 (29:02):
Come back for a quick segment. You bet Monday Gun
Day with the gun Guy. This is the hammer in
Nigel Show. Nowhere near as wendy as it was earlier,
but still pretty cold. Twenty four at the American Standard
Heating Weather Center. It is Monday Gun Day. We've got
Guy Relford with us. So, guy, you gave us a
little look back at twenty twenty five.

Speaker 1 (29:26):
Let's look forward.

Speaker 3 (29:27):
What can two a enthusiasts, law abiding gun owners look
forward to in twenty twenty six.

Speaker 4 (29:34):
Well, what's interesting is the Supreme Court, the US Supreme
Court has accepted two cases to two A cases, and
we'll see those rulings sometime in twenty twenty six. And
anytime the Second Amendment gets reviewed in any context in
the Supreme Court. It's big news because they don't take
that many two AA cases.

Speaker 3 (29:54):
I was going to say it seems rare they're taking two.

Speaker 4 (29:57):
It really is, and they they can too. One is
to look at whether someone who's a regular marijuana user
can be prosecuted for possessing a firearm even though there
was no evidence they were high on marijuana at the
time they were found with a gun. Just the fact
that they're a habitual user of marijuana. Is that enough

(30:21):
under the statute that says that you may not possess
a firearm if you're a user of or addicted to
any illegal drug. And marijuana is still illegal at the federal.

Speaker 3 (30:31):
Level, right, So the gray area becomes these states where
it's legal, but that's at the state level, not at
the federal level.

Speaker 4 (30:39):
That's right. And since it's a federal statute that says
you can't possess a gun if you're a user of
an illegal drug, then the federal statute directly applies saying
marijuana is still illegal. So this is guy HARMANI. Now
HARMANI apparently is not a very great guy. Guy has
some connections to Iran, some questions of whether he was

(30:59):
a susociated in anti America Islamic activities. So there's a
bunch of background though we don't like very much. But
in a vacuum, you would like to think that this
case would would leave the Supreme Court to say, hold
on someone who simply uses marijuana occasionally but was not
even under the influence at the time they were found
with a gun, how do we want to prosecute that

(31:20):
guy put him in jail for ten years, particularly when
I don't know what the number is because it's not
my issue. I mean, aren't there even a majority of
the states now that have legalized either medicinal or even
recreational marijuana or both.

Speaker 3 (31:34):
So if he gets into a brawl at a bar
and gets arrested, if he has a ball at home
just been sitting there under his kitchen sink forever, that's
going to be something that could get him ten years.

Speaker 4 (31:47):
Yeah, ten years in federal prison. And that's the issue.
So we'll see. And you know old saying, You've heard
me say it many times, Jason, that bad facts make
bad law. So I'm not excited that HARMANI is not
necessarily the poster child you'd like to see going up
on this issue right, But we'll see what the Supreme
Court that does with that, and then very quickly the
other case that Supreme Court took is Hawaii's law. Is

(32:09):
this constitutional that they say you cannot carry a gun?
It's illegal under Hawaii law to carry a gun into
a business or other private property unless the property owner
has already given you prior consent to possess a firearm
on their property. So unless there's a big sign on
the wall that says, yes, you can carry a gun
in my store, and I carry a gun in some
store that the property owner may just not feel one

(32:31):
way or the other about it. But in Hawaii, I
go to jail unless I have prior permission to take
my gun on private property. That clearly, in my mind
is unconstitutional. And I think we'll see that ruling from
the Supreme Court in twenty twenty six.

Speaker 3 (32:44):
If somebody has any questions for you, maybe they want
to hire you, maybe they have questions about the law.

Speaker 4 (32:51):
Where can they go? If you want to contact me professionally,
come through the websites Ralford Law dot com, ralfordlaw dot com.
Otherwise follow me on Twitter or x is just to
act all right?

Speaker 3 (33:01):
Coming up next Guy's going to stick around because he's
filling in for Nigel all show long. We talked about
this a little bit earlier, but we'll get into the
Mark Sanchez update because there is an update, and what
the hell is going on in Minnesota?

Speaker 1 (33:17):
That's next Hammer and Nigel.

Speaker 5 (33:20):
You believe these characters are weirdos.

Speaker 3 (33:24):
Hey, now it's the Hammer and Nigel Show. I'm Jason Hammer.

Speaker 4 (33:30):
Big.

Speaker 1 (33:30):
Nige's out.

Speaker 3 (33:31):
He's still recovering from that pine Cone incident that we
were told not.

Speaker 1 (33:36):
To speak of. But Guy Raelford is filling in and Guy.

Speaker 3 (33:40):
We talked about this a little bit earlier when John
Nett came in to recap the top five biggest stories
of twenty twenty five in Indiana, the Mark Sanchez story
was one of the biggest stories. We have an update
today and again we touched on this earlier, but I
feel like being a defensi attorn you can kind of

(34:01):
take us into an area where we can get some
explanation of why this is happening.

Speaker 1 (34:06):
So Fox Corporation is asking.

Speaker 3 (34:09):
For the lawsuit stemming from Mark Sanchez's brawl downtown to
be moved to a federal court and out of Indiana.

Speaker 1 (34:20):
Fox Corps, pointing out that.

Speaker 3 (34:22):
Sanchez and themselves Fox both out of state defendants. Now
they go on to claim that the parent company of
Saint Elmo Steakhouse, Hughes Culinary, was fraudulent, fraudulently joined in
this lawsuit with the sole intention of keeping this case
in Indiana, because if you remember, the victim added Hughes Culinary,

(34:47):
who full discretion advertisers here on the Hammer In Nigel Show.
We've got a good relationship with those guys. But the
victim and his legal team were basically saying, hey, maybe
s Ranchas was over served by these guys allegedly and
they need to be held responsible too.

Speaker 1 (35:06):
So they were added to this lawsuit.

Speaker 3 (35:08):
But now Fox is trying to get this moved to
a federal court. They say Hughes Culinary was added and
it's bull crap.

Speaker 1 (35:17):
Walk me through what's really happening here.

Speaker 4 (35:19):
Yeah, what's going on is it's just a fight over
whether the lawsuit and again we're talking about the civil
lawsuit here now, so we're not talking about the criminal
prosecution of Mark Sanchez, totally different issue. So we're talking
about the civil lawsuit basically filed by the person who
was injured right correct, beat up by Mark Sanchez. The

(35:40):
whole issue is whether this stays in state court and
I believe filed in Marion County, or whether it is
moved and still stay in Indiana. But it would be
in Indiana in federal court, and as a defendant a
lot of times, as a defendant, you'd much rather be
in federal court. You're going to get a much more

(36:02):
broad jury pool. In other words, here in the Southern
District of Indiana's the federal district we're in. We're in there,
you're gonna call from You're gonna call jurors in from
the whole district, basically from Indianapolis, you know, south, and
so you're gonna get a different jury pool, you're gonna
have more procedural safeguards. I think defendants tend to think
of it that way.

Speaker 3 (36:22):
Inside Fox feels like they might not be able to
get a fair shake if they just keep it in
downtown Indianapolis. So they're trying to expand the playing field, yeah.

Speaker 4 (36:31):
And just get it into federal court because they believe
that gives them more of an advantage than being stuck
in Marion County in state court. So that's what it's about.
You can't move a case into federal court in this
instance where there's no federal question, no federal legal question,
and there's no diversity of citizenship. And in that context,
you have to have complete diversity. In other words, everybody

(36:53):
has to be from different states, as between all defendants
and all plaintiffs. So by suing a low entity that
is the parent company of Saint Elmo's that if they're
an Indiana entity, now all of a sudden, there's not
diversity of citizenship. You can't move it into federal court.

Speaker 3 (37:11):
Okay, And so without Hugh's culinary, because that's who the
parent company is here, let's just keep it as Mark Sanchez,
Fox and the victim. You've got Fox whose headquarters are
on the East coast.

Speaker 4 (37:24):
Who's Mark Sanchez's employer, that's why they're joint.

Speaker 3 (37:26):
You've got Mark Sanchez who lives in California, right, and
then the victim that lives here in Indiana.

Speaker 4 (37:32):
So if it's just.

Speaker 3 (37:33):
Those three, it's you know, everybody in different places. That
would be a situation where it could go to a
federal court, yes, but by adding a local restaurant in
that's where it would stay at a local level, and
this is why Fox is saying that Hughes Culinary was
added fraudulently.

Speaker 4 (37:54):
Yeah, and listen, I mean if the allegation is called
a dram shop back, you know, if some place and
I'm not commenting at all on the merits of whether
this happened or not, but if a local bar overserved
someone and they go out and injure someone, it's called
a dram shop case. That's been around forever, and you've
seen those lawsuits around forever. So it's going to be

(38:15):
interesting to see exactly what the argument is to say
they were fraudulently joined into that. And that's the only
way you can say, well, there's still diversities because these
people should be essentially kicked out as potential defendants. Well,
it's a viable cause of action to say that someone
overserved in this case, Mark Sanchez, and they then went
out and injured someone as a result. That happens all

(38:37):
the time.

Speaker 3 (38:38):
Guy Relford with us filling in for Big Knowledge. Earlier today,
Christy Nomes sent Homeland Security agents to Minnesota to look
into a number of different things where fraud is taking place.
And when I say fraud, we're talking about billions of
dollars with a fraud. Here guy from ridiculous childcare centers

(39:02):
that might not exist, other programs allegedly ran by the government.
Smalli's occupying some of these different areas. Up to six
billion dollars. That's what a bee could be on the
line here of people screwing over taxpayers in Minnesota. And

(39:24):
now Christy nom has sent a task force in. FBI
Director Cash Battel also sending additional resources in. This is
a big deal, guy, And I'm not just saying this
because Minnesota is a liberal state or Tim Walls is
a little bit of a you know what, six billion
dollars the taxpayers have been screwed out of.

Speaker 4 (39:46):
Oh, it's huge. And listen, I'd never heard of this
sort of independent reporter Nick Shirley before, but I've seen
a bunch of his videos here just recently where he's
gone in and he's found these daycares that have received
millions and millions of and he's gone in and he's
found neighbors and said, hey, there's a sign on the
building over here says daycare. Have you ever seen a
kid or a parent go in and out of this building? No,

(40:08):
I've never seen a single human being ever go in
and out of that building. Over the last year or
two years or three years.

Speaker 3 (40:14):
One of the signs had child care spelled in correctly.

Speaker 4 (40:19):
Exactly. So what's fascinating to me is there have been
millions of dollars, to your point, Jason, of taxpayer dollars
funneled into these things in the name of childcare or education,
and it turns out a whole big bunch of it
is fraud. And what's going to be really interesting is
following the money. Is this just individuals who are bilking

(40:42):
the government or is that money also coming back to
elected officials in Minnesota in some way? That seems to
be the direction that the investigation is going. Is going
to be really interesting to see whether whether that bears
fruit or not.

Speaker 3 (40:56):
And if it's happening in Minnesota, h I am telling
you what's happening other places too. You mentioned Nick Shirley.
This is the independent journalist who broke this story. He
jumped on Fox and said, look, I'm happy to have
broke this story, but there needs to be some consequences here.

Speaker 10 (41:15):
Yeah, they're better be changed. People are demanding it. The
investigations have been launched just from that video alone. And
so they're better be changed because, like I said, we
work way too hard to be paying taxes. We work
way too hard to be not knowing where our money's going.
And at the end of the day, people in the government,
they work for us. We don't work for them. And
so it's their responsibility to hold these people accountable. And

(41:38):
so if there's not something that's happened, people are gonna
be very frustrated. And so at President Trump's watching this,
it's time to really get down to the agrity and
to make a difference in this place of Minnesota that
is pretty much like Somaliland.

Speaker 3 (41:51):
Right now, and quick correction, the word learning was spelled incorrectly.
I think I said childcare. The word learning was spelled
incorrect spell That's interesting right there, right now, here's where
I'm at with this. This is a big picture takeaway. Okay,
I'm glad we found this. I hope people go to jail.

(42:11):
I don't have my hopes high because it seems like
these people tend to get away with this crap all
the time. Guy, But if it took an independent journalist,
just some dude this long to realize up to six
billion dollars maybe fraudulently used here.

Speaker 1 (42:31):
We are way over taxed as a nation.

Speaker 3 (42:33):
If six billion dollars goes missing and it takes a
while for somebody to say, hey, wait a minute, what's
going on here? Or if they're shenanigans about where it goes,
we are overtaxed. Like we're talking about six billion dollars.
I feel like Alan iverson here. We're talking about practice,
not you know, some little mom and pop shop that

(42:55):
was a little late filing their W nine or whatever
W two.

Speaker 1 (42:59):
This is a big deal.

Speaker 3 (43:01):
If we can't keep track of this stuff, we are overtaxed.

Speaker 4 (43:04):
Well, you know what I'm sick of too, Jason. I'm
sick of hearing stories like, well, you know, a bunch
of aid to Ukraine actually ended up get gettting funneled
back to corrupt politicians in the US, or a big
portion of US AID money. Right once we had doze
looking into where all the US AID money. It turns
out that was a big slush fund for Democrat politicians

(43:27):
and a lot of that came back to the DNC
or to individual Democrat politicians. I'm tired of hearing these
stories of where this money ended up and nobody going
to jail. When's somebody gonna go to jail? That's what
I want to see.

Speaker 3 (43:40):
We've been saying that for a long time about a
lot of different stuff.

Speaker 1 (43:43):
Guy, I'm with you again.

Speaker 3 (43:45):
I don't have my hopes high, but I can hope
not bear what's up.

Speaker 4 (43:50):
Presents.

Speaker 8 (43:51):
It depends upon what the meaning of the word is.

Speaker 4 (44:00):
Is this anything?

Speaker 3 (44:03):
Money is the sit It ain't brought to you by
Indiana Unclaimed, a program presented by the Attorney General's Office.
Here in Indiana, the Attorney General's Office reuniting hoosiers with
over one million dollars and unclaimed property every single week, fast, easy,

(44:24):
and I can't stress this enough.

Speaker 1 (44:26):
It's free, free to search at Indiana Unclaimed dot gov.
I believe you found some money there once, right.

Speaker 4 (44:33):
Guy, oh man, I got twenty five hundred dollars BODNA unclaimed,
primarily an old bank account I opened when I was
like cutting grass when I was like ten years old.
That's awesome, and yeah, that was a big deal. In fact,
I sent a picture to an Attorney general and said,
thank you so much. Man. This was uh. I guess
what I did with that twenty five hundred dollars.

Speaker 3 (44:52):
It's either meat cigars or bourbon rifle rifle bought a
Damn that was.

Speaker 1 (44:58):
Too easy of an answer. I was trying to go
outside the box.

Speaker 3 (45:04):
Yeah, I love very nice ar with that and an
optic nice all right, I think I already know the
answer to this, but I'm gonna ask you anyway. Is
this anything the Indianapolis Colts missing the playoffs? Yeah, once
again Carly Ursa with some decisions to make now, is
this anything?

Speaker 4 (45:24):
Of course? I mean it's you know, the fact that
we haven't won the division since what twenty fourteen is something.
It's something every year.

Speaker 3 (45:32):
And it's not like it's the NFC East or the
you know, NFC North, where there are a bunch of
competitive teams year in and year out.

Speaker 4 (45:40):
Yeah, I mean the Jaguiars, who are going to win
the division by all appearances right now, had four wins
last year and we can't compete with these people when
we dominated that division from the time it was created
up through certainly the Peyton years and into the Andrew Luckier.
So it is something for that reason. It's especially something

(46:01):
when you start out seven and one, even eight and
two and then go one and seven over your last
eight games.

Speaker 3 (46:08):
That's uh, that's unacceptable. That's not acceptably, even if your
quarterback goes down. Even if your quarterback goes down one
and seven, Well, you just saw brock Prudy go what
he was out eight games, And look at San Francisco
this year. There are other teams that are better suited
to respond when they lose key players. That's what a
GM supposed to do.

Speaker 4 (46:27):
That's why I think a lot of focus, as it
is every year it has been for five, six, seven years,
is going to be on Ballard and whether we retain
him as GM, and uh and and and listen, I'm
hoping that the new regime, I mean, since we lost
Jimmy Orsay. And listen, I've met him several times. I
like Jimmy Orsay. I was sorry when he died. But

(46:48):
I also hope for a little fresh perspective and and
and and I think he could be a little soft.
I think Jimmy cared about people. I think he got
close to Pe.

Speaker 1 (46:56):
He was a little too loyal because he cared about people.

Speaker 4 (46:59):
I think he cares heard about individuals. He got close
to him exactly to your point. And I think it
was hard for him to make tough decisions. And I'm
hoping perhaps the next generation is going to look at
things a little differently because this is not this is
not okay that we should not accept. You know, eight wins,
seven wins a year after year after year and uh
and what eleven twelve seasons now without winning the division?

(47:19):
That's not okay. And this is definitely something.

Speaker 3 (47:22):
On the YouTube chat bart miss foul sports boring, tell
me that that's not Tim Wall's burner account. That is
Tim Wall's burner account right there.

Speaker 4 (47:34):
Yeah. Wait, somebody listens to Hammer and Nigel is complaining
about talking about sports. I'm sorry that we we work
that in I say we, you guys and me when
I'm sitting in on occasion. We work that into every
show and it's a big focus.

Speaker 1 (47:47):
We were to show about dudes.

Speaker 4 (47:48):
We're a show about dudes and other people of like minds.
And hey, your guy, I've gone to some pacer games
with and gone to the Indy five hundred with. Yeah,
we'll talk about sports from time to time. You bet?

Speaker 1 (47:59):
Is this anything?

Speaker 3 (48:00):
A Florida man has filed a lawsuit against Outback Steakhouse,
alleging that the handicapped toilet he used at one of
their locations suddenly shattered and collapsed while he was using it.
He says he sustained quote, severe bodily injury and permanent

(48:21):
loss of an important bodily function and loss of capacity
for the enjoyment of life as a result of this
toilet shattering at an outback in Florida.

Speaker 1 (48:32):
Is this anything?

Speaker 4 (48:33):
Well, you know, in order to determine if this is
anything or not, Jason, what's the first question that popped
into your head when you read this story? What was
the first thing that made you wonder about the facts
of this case.

Speaker 3 (48:44):
Well, the first thing that popped into my head was
the toilet's finally getting revenge for all the damage I've
done to it over the years.

Speaker 1 (48:51):
It's revenge of the toilet. That's what I took.

Speaker 4 (48:53):
Didn't come on? Did that come into your head before
you thought how much this guy weigh who sat on
this toilet?

Speaker 3 (48:59):
Yeah, I mean Florida man at an outback steakhouse. I'm
willing to bet it's probably not Bradley Cooper. It's probably
not Michael Phelps.

Speaker 4 (49:10):
Right at the same time, I mean, that's the first
question that pops into my mind, is this some four
hundred pound guy. At the same time, is there a
maximum capacity for a toilet? And if so, shouldn't that
be posted somewhere? And listen, I'm not trying to justify
silly lawsuits. Even as a lawyer. I'm anti frivolous lawsuit passionately.
But is there a maximum capacity? If I'm four hundred pounds,

(49:32):
should I not be able to sit on a standard
toilet in a bathroom? That's interesting to me. So I
think this is something. I think you should be able
to use a toilet uless there's some warning to the
contrary without the thing shattering and injuring you in the process.

Speaker 3 (49:45):
Okay, And I'll do Devil's advocate here. Bet If I'm
in charge of bringing in the toilets to the outback steakhouse,
especially in Florida, I have to know that the folks
coming into my restaurant are probably.

Speaker 1 (49:58):
Going to be some biggins, probably going to be some biggins.

Speaker 11 (50:01):
And I just say it was also in the handicap stall,
so you know, it's more room, it's bigger in those.
Maybe you're correct they maybe they wasn't up the code
in the handicap stall.

Speaker 3 (50:12):
You got to know who your audience is, right Like,
I'm willing to bet they probably cut a few corners
and said, oh, let's go with this porcelain company. No
in Florida at an outback steakhouse, and I would make
the same argument for a waffle house. You have to
know who your guests are coming in and what they
look like.

Speaker 4 (50:30):
So you're not even being Devil's advocate. You're agreeing with
me because because you ought to be able to design
a toilet right in and out back steakhouse that's going
to support your clientele, and you're not going to put
cheap toilets in there. They're going to collapse and cause
somebody an injury. I think this is something.

Speaker 3 (50:49):
The kind of guy that's on an all blooming onion diet,
he's going to need something sturdy.

Speaker 1 (50:54):
It's the Hammer and Nigel showsten to the Hammer and
Nichel Show, Big Nightge's out, Guy Roeford filling in. I'm
Jason Hammer.

Speaker 3 (51:09):
President Trump, he's been doing a little meet and greet,
had a little chat with Zolensky, had a little chat
with Bbe, trying to work on getting that Nobel Peace Prize.

Speaker 4 (51:23):
Guy.

Speaker 3 (51:24):
Let's start with President Trump meeting with Zolensky. They met
at mar A Lago over the weekend, continuing to try
to figure out a way to end this war. And
I think Trump's at the point now where he realizes
I may have.

Speaker 1 (51:39):
Overpromised a little bit. I could end this war in
the first day. Well, here we are still dealing with
this crap.

Speaker 3 (51:48):
He's chatting with both. Communication lines are open. It seems
like Zelensky's getting more and more open to the concept
of having to give up a little bit, but we're
not quite there yet.

Speaker 4 (52:02):
Your thoughts, well, you know you need two parties to
reach any deal, right, You got to have both people
at the table, both people wanting to cut a deal.
And I'm a little cynical as long as US money
is flowing into Ukraine, whether directly or indirectly through other countries,
I'm a little cynical about whether Zelensky really wants a

(52:24):
deal or not, because that money's flown in and it's
not real. They're not real good safeguards. And my understanding
is including hearing from some members of US Congress about
what happens that money once it goes into Ukraine. So
I'm a little cynical about whether Zolensky wants to resolve
that conflict or not. And Putin has to have something

(52:44):
that looks like absolute victory for him to be a
hero at home, right, that's his goal. He has to
be able to declare it or win.

Speaker 3 (52:50):
It can't be a stalemate, and he's got that leverage
right now, honestly, And what Nige and I have been
talking about is, you know, it might not be the
most popular thing to say, but Russia has been winning
this war. They will ultimately win this war. Now, is
there a military overrated? Sure, we thought they would crush
these dudes in a matter of weeks, but it's been

(53:13):
years now. But under no circumstance is there a path
of victory for Ukraine.

Speaker 4 (53:19):
Right, So, if Putin stays with the war, he's gonna
be able to declare victory at some point. Whatever he
decides victory looks like. So I'm cynical about his willingness
to reach a deal. Zelensky, I still think has a
financial incentive to keep the aid flowing. So I'm not
sure he really wants a deal and doesn't want to
admit anything that looks like a defeat from his end.

(53:40):
That makes me cynical about the ability to close the
gap and actually reach a deal on this thing.

Speaker 3 (53:47):
Then President Trump met with bab netan Yahoo, and yes,
they talked a little bit about what's going on with
Israel and Hamas. Just because things have quieted down does
mean all is well. To quote Kevin Bacon and Animal
House here all as well, there are pockets where people
get squirrely. But more than anything else, I think they

(54:11):
were talking about what to do with Iran, because Iran,
according to reports, they're getting that nuke program rolling again,
they're working with bad actors, and of course with Israel
being right there, this is something that's of importance to
both Israel and the United States.

Speaker 4 (54:28):
Yeah, you know, when we dropped the bunker busters on Iran,
on their nuclear facility over there, the development facility, a
lot of people I think just kind of close the
book on the chapter of Iran being a global risk.
And I disagreed at the time that I saw that
mentality start to arise, and I disagree with it today.
And I think that's an incredibly important discussion. And who

(54:51):
is more interested in that issue than Israel in the
United States. So I'm glad those discussions are going on
and I'm glad we're not going to just declare, you know,
mission scomplished right right, and think that thing's over when
clearly Iran doesn't think so, and they're going to continue
trying to become the global threat that they really want
to become.

Speaker 3 (55:11):
Guy Reelford in for Big Knowledge, We've been talking a
lot lately about Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman post stroke. Fetterman
has actually been the voice of reason for the Democrat Party. Now,
make no mistake, he's not a Republican, he's not a conservative,

(55:31):
and he will be the first to tell you that.
But he also makes it clear I'm not one of
these lunatics that are running the Democratic Party into the ground.
Fetterman sees that this is not a path to win elections.
Having dudes undressed in front of girls in the locker
room not good for business. Being pro Venezuelan drug VOTs

(55:55):
not good for business. So he's been speaking out against
his own part, and he jumped on CNN to do
a little bit more of it.

Speaker 12 (56:03):
Clearly we've lost the argument, and now right now I
think it's entirely appropriate to really be honest and just
figure out why exactly have we effectively lost two out
of less three cycles and a lot of the things.
We've really kind of really lost our connection with American
voters in ways. And I think we can't just be well,

(56:26):
Trump is always wrong, or that we're going to set
the country on fire or whatever. That's just not true either,
of course. But you know, when I represent a state
like Pennsylvania, that keeps you honest and you always can't
forget that a lot of Americans happen to disagree with you,
that does not mean that they are fascists or now

(56:46):
they want to shred the Constitution.

Speaker 3 (56:50):
So, guy, we were talking about this off the air
a little bit. Democrats for a long time have had
a problem appealing to men, appealing to dudes. Fetterman sees
that as a problem of why they keep getting their
ass handed to them. And he's like, hey, guys, I
might not be the most popular Democrat here. I'm not AOC,

(57:12):
I'm not you know some of these other folks up here.

Speaker 1 (57:15):
But we're going to have to change our moo. We
can't double down.

Speaker 4 (57:18):
Well yeah, and you know, as a Republican, there's someone
who cheers on victories by Republicans. I almost hate to
see this from John Fetterman, because of course I agree
with everything he's saying. But what I what I hate
to see is the injection of some logic and reason
into the Democrat platform. And I'm going, oh, man, I

(57:39):
hope AOC you know in Bernie and the rest of
the liberal wackos, progressive wackos just jump all over him
and shut him up. Because the last thing I want
to see is anyone in the Democrat Party start waking
up to say hold on. I probably shouldn't use the
term waking up. That's a misuse there, but you know,
to actually get ation that, oh my god, we are

(58:01):
destroying our own platform and our own party and our
own credibility by ignoring some obvious truths from somebody like
John Fetterman.

Speaker 3 (58:11):
Because right now the faces of the Democratic Party are
Jasmine Crockett, aoc Ihan Omar, and Fetterman's like, are you
trying to lose?

Speaker 1 (58:22):
Are you trying to lose?

Speaker 4 (58:23):
Now?

Speaker 3 (58:23):
You bring up up Bernie Sanders, old man, Bernie, he's
got his diaper in a twist about AI. So Bernie
comes out the other day and says the impact of
artificial intelligence on the economic aspect of this country is
going to be problematic for a lot of people.

Speaker 1 (58:43):
Now, what I took from that is.

Speaker 3 (58:45):
That Bernie is scared that AI will show people socialism
sucks and that everything he's been doing has been just
one big grift.

Speaker 4 (58:56):
Yeah, you know, I think information is the enemy of
the Democrat Party espects to me the socialists, and easy
access exactly to more accurate information is the enemy of socialism.
So I can absolutely understand why he's why he's taking
that approach. Although I have to tell you, I mean,
you responded I posted, it's probably been three weeks ago.

(59:16):
I posted, I made my own meme and I said
the internet was better before AI, and you come out
and said, hold on, you've not seen some of the
productions from Hammer and Niger Records lately, at which I
had to agree with. But I mean, I hate AI
over the internet. It's wrong so often. I mean, I
had people, you know, posting things on my social media saying, no, guy,

(59:37):
that thing you said the other day was wrong, and
here's my you know, screenshot of my AI search and
it's just wrong. It's just flat ass wrong, and so
it drives me nuts. And I'm hoping that it's developed
to such a degree that the credibility and accuracy gets
so much better.

Speaker 3 (59:53):
I hear you loud and clear on guy, but here
to offer a different perspective, ladies and gentlemen, AI, Bernie Sanders.

Speaker 13 (01:00:03):
Look, if you teach people financial tips via artificial intelligence,
people then will then realize they have no excuse to
be lazy grifters depending on the government, I can't have that.
That's my entire business model. Being a lazy piece of
shit has been great for my brand and it's helped

(01:00:25):
me become the richest socialist in the world.

Speaker 1 (01:00:28):
A I Bernie out see.

Speaker 3 (01:00:30):
I think AI has been a gift at least it's
been a gift to the Hammer and Nigel Show.

Speaker 4 (01:00:34):
You know what that right there? I mean that was
Bernie right. That is so scary to me. The fact
that AI can produce that, and how the videos are
just as lifelike.

Speaker 3 (01:00:44):
Absolutely, it looked just like Nigel was making out with
Whoopee Goldberg.

Speaker 2 (01:00:49):
It did.

Speaker 1 (01:00:50):
It's the Hammer and Nigel Show. Seven more.

Speaker 3 (01:00:53):
Just need seven more people, seven good looking hoosiers, people
who look good naked to jump on the WIBC YouTube
stream and give us a like that gets us to
one hundred. That's a pretty good number considering everybody's either
at work, mailing it in or at home.

Speaker 1 (01:01:11):
So seven more people.

Speaker 3 (01:01:12):
If you think Guy Ralford's a badass, or if you
are ready to have the greatest night of your life tonight,
go to wibc's YouTube page and give us a like.
Just seven more twenty four at the American Standard Heating
Weather Center. Coming up a little bit after five o'clock.
Charlie Kirk's killer appeared virtually in a court today.

Speaker 1 (01:01:35):
We have an update on that. We've got a little
booze news.

Speaker 3 (01:01:39):
We're going to try to do Ask the Gun Guy
in the five o'clock hour, and we'll do some cults
post mortem with Kevin Bowen. That's all coming up here
after five. Guy Relford's filling in for Big Nige and Guy.
What we've been doing every day that we've been on
the air since we found out IU was going to
play Alabama is we have some very distasteful Alabama jokes

(01:02:04):
because you know me, you don't have to twist my
arm to make fun of those hillbillies of Alabama. Maybe
that's the Tennessee volunteer blood in me coming out, just
a little bit.

Speaker 1 (01:02:14):
I won't confirm nor deny, but we've been doing this
every single day since we found out the matchup today
is going to be no different. Now, before we get
to the Alabama jokes of the day, I got a
voicemail about some of the jokes we did last week.

Speaker 7 (01:02:30):
Fine, my name is. We were just traveling along listening
to IBC and listening to Nigel and Hammer, and they
told a joke on there about an Alabama guy crossing
the street having sex with his sister. That's probably efficient.
I've never heard Nigel and Hammer do anything like that before. Really,
the usually pretty good. That's horrible, actually, the sceptic and

(01:02:56):
is really illegal to have sex with your family member?
Like that what I want, folks? You know there Cayle
highly upset. I am to hear this all your All's
radio station. Really offensive.

Speaker 3 (01:03:07):
I love that His breaking point on that was it's illegal.
Like that's the part that really rubbed him the wrong way.
It's illegal.

Speaker 4 (01:03:17):
Yeah, and by the way, way, it's only been illegal
in Alabama since nineteen ninety seven.

Speaker 1 (01:03:21):
I thought you're gonna say since two o'clock this afternoon.
Thank you for your feedback.

Speaker 3 (01:03:27):
I appreciate that but I promise you We've said way
worse on this program. Nigel is thrown up on the air,
I've gotten botox in a bar. We've done stupider things
on this program.

Speaker 4 (01:03:39):
You know, I'm in studio with you guys one day
a week and I fill in regularly, and I got
to tell you, I'm a little shocked that that was
the guy's tipping point. Right, I'm not getting that at all.

Speaker 3 (01:03:48):
So with that being said, it's time for your Alabama jokes.
Hoosiers Bama coming up on New Year's Day? How can
you tell it was somebody from the state of Alabama
that invented the toothbrush, because had it been anybody else,
it will have been called the teeth brush in the
state of Alabama. The word variety variety means quote, hooking

(01:04:15):
up with your first and second cousins. Hopefully that wasn't
too offensive for the previous caller. Your daily dose of
Alabama Jyes, do you.

Speaker 4 (01:04:27):
Know why they outlawed swimming in the rivers in Alabama?

Speaker 1 (01:04:30):
Why is that?

Speaker 4 (01:04:31):
All the bridges?

Speaker 1 (01:04:35):
Gott Ralford off the top rope and some Alabama jokes?
I love it, I love it.

Speaker 3 (01:04:40):
That will be a new Degenerates Nextdoor podcast that will
be coming out as early as tomorrow, possibly later on tonight,
where myself, Rob and the two professional sports handicappers we
work with, Kenny Britt of kb's Sports and David stephanoff
a Fallen ever Fate will have free plays on IU

(01:05:02):
versus Alabama, So be looking. We haven't done a podcast
in a couple of weeks because the move has happened.
We've had some equipment issues, our pets, heads are falling off,
everything was going wrong at the same time. So we're
trying to get a podcast going. Gonna record it tonight,
might be out tonight, could be tomorrow. But if you're

(01:05:22):
looking for a little action on that IU Alabama game,
myself and the professionals will have it for you. Producer
Kurt's filling in for Allison. Here, Kurt jump on the mic. Here,
I you Alabama thoughts on your end?

Speaker 11 (01:05:37):
I want I'm not an IU guy. I'm a predue
guy through it through. I love the story, but I
really think Alabama maybe takes this one and maybe embarrasses I.

Speaker 4 (01:05:47):
You really, I do?

Speaker 1 (01:05:48):
When did you join al Qaida?

Speaker 4 (01:05:51):
Since two o'clock?

Speaker 3 (01:05:54):
And that's what we call a circle back, Baby, there
you go, all right, do not go anywhere. We're having
a good time with you guys. Guy Relford's here. We're
gonna do some ask the Gun Guy later on and
uh Man having a good time on kind of a
holiday week. Turn the radio up, crack open a cold one,
don't go anywhere.

Speaker 1 (01:06:14):
This is the Hammer and Nigel Show. Hammer and Nigel.
Do you believe these characters are weirdos?

Speaker 10 (01:06:20):
So let's.

Speaker 3 (01:06:23):
Counting down the days until twenty twenty six. I'm Jason Hammer,
Guy Relford, the Gun Guy, host of The Gun Guy Show,
filling in for Big Nige here and Guy Tomorrow when
John att Cruz comes in to recap the top five
biggest stories in America on her daily segment with us,

(01:06:45):
I know one of those stories is going to be
the assassination of Charlie Kirk. You bet might even be
the number one story. And his killer appeared virtually in
a court today. Now today was to a address the
media access in the upcoming proceedings. The judge is allowing

(01:07:07):
media to see the redacted transcript of the Gunman Tyler
Robinson's closed door hearing.

Speaker 6 (01:07:15):
Now.

Speaker 1 (01:07:15):
The audio of that.

Speaker 3 (01:07:17):
Will be available in about two weeks, but we still
don't know definitively yet if cameras will be allowed in
the courtroom. Guy, if you were a defense attorney for
Tyler Robinson and on the other side, if you're the prosecutors,
do you want cameras in the courtroom?

Speaker 4 (01:07:37):
Well, I mean, as a defense lawyer, I'll I'll address
that first. Absolutely not. I mean, I don't want anyone
in the courtroom, you know, playing for the cameras. I
don't want people more concerned about, you know, how they're
appearing on national television or even local television as compared

(01:07:58):
to you know, what's going on in the court. It's
a distraction. It's a distraction for everybody involved. And I've
faced this issue, including just recently, and I have always
opposed cameras in the courtroom as a lawyer.

Speaker 3 (01:08:12):
When you say most recently, is this in regards to
the high profile Whitestown situation. Again, I'm walking on eggshells
because I don't know what you can and can't talk
about as you're part of that situation.

Speaker 1 (01:08:26):
But is that what we're talking about here?

Speaker 4 (01:08:28):
Yeah? And I mean again, I won't talk about that
case substantively at all, as you know, and as you've
been great about respecting, but I can talk about what
is part of the official proceedings. And there have been
requests filed, including for the initial hearing, to have cameras
in the courtroom from national media and local media, and

(01:08:51):
that's up to the judges discretion. And I'm okay with
that rule. I mean, I like allowing judges to decide.
But where it's going to be a disruption or distraction
or in any way to track from the fairness of
the proceedings, then I'm all about keeping them out. Now
that's the lawyer in me, right. You know, I'm not
a lawyer.

Speaker 3 (01:09:11):
I'm not a defense attorney, and I want cameras in
the court right.

Speaker 4 (01:09:14):
And as a consumer of public information and as a
broadcaster and radio host, hey, I want as much access
as I can get, you know. And and I don't know.
I'm not someone who's gonna sit and binge watch a
lot of a trial. But you know, for instance, I
watched a lot of oj way back in the day,
and even I saw just what the news replayed on

(01:09:36):
the Johnny Depp more recent trial here, and you know what,
I tend to think those things turned into circuses a
little bit more than the quite a bit more actually
than the trials that are not broadcast. So I've never
been a fan as a lawyer, but as a consumer
of public information, oh yeah, I want to see every
bit I can see.

Speaker 3 (01:09:56):
I feel like had cameras been allowed in the Delphi
court room, there wouldn't have been so many conspiracy theories.
There wouldn't have been so much of this and that
from the public, because it sounds like, based on the
reporting from the reporters that were there, one thing was
fed to the public, but those who were in the

(01:10:16):
courtroom said no, this was a pretty obvious case. Like
That's why I want the transparency there. I want to
be able to hear from myself and see what's going on.

Speaker 1 (01:10:26):
Does that make sense?

Speaker 4 (01:10:27):
It makes perfect sense. And that's how you know, any
of us, as consumers of public information, are going to feel.
But as a trial lawyer, and I'm not directing this
at you at all because you're my buddy, but my
reaction is is that your opinion doesn't matter. You know,
the public's opinion doesn't matter. What it matters is the
opinion of the of the jury and the fairness of

(01:10:49):
the proceeding in terms of making sure that jury gets
to to hear the information in as perfect and in
sterile an environment as they possibly can to reach the
right verdict. Is what I'm what I'm interested in. And yes,
we're all interested and we all value our own opinions,
but public opinion just doesn't matter. And that's what the
trial lawyer in me says.

Speaker 3 (01:11:09):
The murder of Charlie was intended to be a public spectacle.
The shooter wanted everybody to see it happened during an
event at turning point. I feel like the trial should
be a public spectacle. And when I say spectacle, I
don't mean circus, but I think it should be for
the public to see if you're Johnny tough guy enough

(01:11:30):
to murder a man in the public, I think it's
perfectly fine to see just this being served in the public.

Speaker 4 (01:11:38):
Yeah, well, let me put my defensiveleyar hat back on.
You know, the word a legend was kind of missing
from that whole discussion right there, right, I mean, you know,
is it possible this guy's a patsy? Is it possible
this guy's being framed? Is it possible the government's even
putting this guy up to cover for someone else that
may have killed Charlie Kirk. I mean, those are all
open questions. And do I have any support for any

(01:11:59):
of those, you know, conspiracy theories. Absolutely not none.

Speaker 3 (01:12:02):
And we'll find out maybe in about two weeks when
these transcripts are really right.

Speaker 4 (01:12:06):
And so it's incumbent upon everyone to keep an open mind,
particularly the people involved in the process. And I think
keeping an open mind is as much easier and it's
much more conducive to keeping an open mind when we
keep cameras out of the courtroom. Again, that's the defense
lawyer in me, not you know, the person who would
love to consume the information.

Speaker 3 (01:12:26):
You're talking to a guy that wants a pay per
view execution channel. So we will agree to disagree on
this guy, you bet. Speaking of the media, new report look,
whether you'll like it or not, this is the numbers.
TikTok has now surpassed YouTube and Instagram as the most
popular social media app for those eighteen to twenty nine

(01:12:50):
to acquire their news updates in America.

Speaker 1 (01:12:53):
TikTok.

Speaker 3 (01:12:54):
It's not Twitter, it's not Facebook, it's not even YouTube
or Instagram.

Speaker 1 (01:12:58):
It's TikTok.

Speaker 3 (01:12:59):
Now for young adults eighteen twenty nine to gather their news.
Forty three percent say they regularly get their news from TikTok,
compared to forty one percent for YouTube and Facebook combined.

Speaker 4 (01:13:15):
See what's fascinating about this to me is we're talking
about news. We're not talking about entertainment, right. We're not
talking about you know, videos of you know, nurses dancing
on their shift, right, or you know the other stuff
that you think of when you think of TikTok video.
We're talking about the primary source of news. What I
grew up, you know, listening to Walter Cronkite delivered to

(01:13:37):
me right, and in other national broadcasters and you know
where you were all around the TV at seven to
listen to the national news come across. And now we're
looking at our phones on an app like TikTok as
a primary source of not just entertainment but news. That's
what's so incredment.

Speaker 2 (01:13:54):
Now.

Speaker 4 (01:13:55):
I'm an old guy, so of course I'm going to
be the most shocked by this of anybody in the room.
But that's crazy to me.

Speaker 3 (01:14:00):
And who's delivering this news on TikTok. Is it some
twenty year old numbnuts that doesn't know what he's talking about,
or is this somebody that actually knows what they're talking about. Like,
you got to take this stuff with a grain of salt.
I have this conversation with my youngest all the time
because he gets a lot of his information from TikTok.

(01:14:20):
I'm like, what's your source on TikTok?

Speaker 4 (01:14:23):
Yeah? Oh, this platform owned by the Chinese government. Okay,
all right.

Speaker 3 (01:14:28):
Before we hit a break here, let's crack up a
little booze news.

Speaker 6 (01:14:32):
You set him up, and I'll knock him back.

Speaker 2 (01:14:34):
Lloyd one beware.

Speaker 1 (01:14:38):
Read booze news, because.

Speaker 3 (01:14:46):
News booze good news for those who live near nature,
near wooded areas near national parks. A study found that
being able to see nature from the windows in your

(01:15:07):
home will lead to fewer cravings for alcohol, cigarettes, and
junk food.

Speaker 1 (01:15:15):
Now I have a little problem with this.

Speaker 3 (01:15:19):
I don't necessarily live near nature. When I look outside
my windows, I see streets and other houses. But when
I do go to nature, I want to drink heavily. Guy,
when I go down to Rocky Top, I'm going down
to drink some moonshine.

Speaker 1 (01:15:34):
I'm going down to get loose. And that's part of them.

Speaker 4 (01:15:38):
That's part of the experience for me. Hey man, I'll
tell you I love when the weather's nice. Spending time
out on the back of deck back behind my house
and we got hummingbird feeders up, and you know we
have foxes that room through there and all kinds of
other critters. We've seen deer over and over. Makes me
want to crack a beer.

Speaker 9 (01:15:56):
Man.

Speaker 4 (01:15:56):
I mean, there's nothing about watching nature that makes me
want to, you know, absolve myself from alcohol and now
junk food and cigarette I'm not I've never smoked cigarette.
My wife. I'll crank up a cigar out there at
every opportunity. That's why I'm outside, so I can smoke
a cigar who.

Speaker 3 (01:16:14):
Is sitting on their back patio looking out at a
beautiful wooded area and go, boy, this makes me really,
really really want to not have a beer. Nobody, No, nobody,
Matt Bear, how are these roads looking right now?

Speaker 4 (01:16:34):
That Hammer Metal Show.

Speaker 3 (01:16:36):
This will either be the greatest segment in the history
of radio or the phones won't work. Let's cross our
fingers here. It's the Hammer and Nigel Show. I'm Jason
Hammer to a attorney, firearms instructor and the host of
the Gun Guy Show. Guy Relford is here and he
is going to answer your to a questions. If you're

(01:16:57):
on hold, all we ask is that you'd be brief,
don't swear, and let's get this party started. Red is
up first, Red, welcome to the show. We got Guy
Relford here.

Speaker 8 (01:17:08):
Hey, what's going on? A long time listener, first time
called to the new studios.

Speaker 6 (01:17:12):
All right, right, hey, so.

Speaker 8 (01:17:16):
I think I asked this once before, but I'm probably
a little bit closer to my time now, Guy, At
what lengths of time do you have to be between
your last charge to try to get a felony expunged?

Speaker 4 (01:17:36):
That was a time limit, great question. It's eight years.
You can get a year. You can get a felony
exponged with eight years with a clean criminal history. Now
what's really important is that's not from the felony charge necessarily.
In other words, if there were misdemeanors in between, then
that still screws you up. So you need eight years
with a clean criminal history in order to get a

(01:17:58):
felony expunged. For misdemeanors, it's five years from your latest
criminal conviction and not all. And I'm sure you know
this not all convictions can be expunged. There are a
bunch of exceptions. But for a lot of really common
felony convictions like old drug charges and you know, multiple
O w I type things, those are those are the

(01:18:18):
kinds of things that absolutely can be expunged, and we
do those all the time. So when you hit when
you hit that eight years, if that's what we're talking about, man,
call my office and we'll hook you up.

Speaker 1 (01:18:28):
Greg is up next. Greg, Welcome to the show, Guy
Relferenz here.

Speaker 9 (01:18:33):
Yes, my mom and dad have a few guns, one
or two of the historical.

Speaker 2 (01:18:38):
The other ones are more modern.

Speaker 7 (01:18:41):
They're like seven mid save indeeds or whatever.

Speaker 9 (01:18:44):
What do I need to do to prepare for if
they should pass on how to take care of those?

Speaker 1 (01:18:50):
Well?

Speaker 7 (01:18:50):
Let me, yeah, let me ask you questions registering all
that kind of stuff.

Speaker 4 (01:18:54):
Yeah. Are these just regular rifles, pistol shotgun kind of things?
In other words, there's no machine guns or short broiled
rifles or anything like that. Yeah, okay, Well let's proceed
on that assumption. If they're just regular rifles, pistols and shotguns,
there's nothing you need to do. They're just property and
they can be transferred via a will or you know,

(01:19:18):
a trust that some people show set up for real
estate or other property. But just like a will, they
can just be bequeathed, you know, given to airs, just
like a couch or a toaster, you know, or any
other piece of property. So there's really nothing you need
to do. And in fact, there's no such thing as
registration of firearms in Indiana. It's kind of a common misunderstanding,

(01:19:42):
but they're not registered to anybody now because we don't
have registration in Indiana, and there's no federal registration other
than for things like machine guns, short barreled rifles that's
a rifle with a barrel less than sixteen inches, or
short barreled shotguns, a shotgun with a barrel less than
eighteen inches, those have to be registered with the federal government.
But just for normal rifle pistols and shotguns, there is

(01:20:04):
no registration and they can be transferred to an air
to a beneficiary just like any other piece of property.
So there's really nothing to do to prepare. And I'm
glad you asked that because that's really a common point
of misunderstanding for people in Indiana.

Speaker 1 (01:20:18):
Chris is waiting patiently. Chris we got guy Ralford here
rock and.

Speaker 6 (01:20:22):
Roll the afternoon.

Speaker 4 (01:20:24):
Guys.

Speaker 7 (01:20:24):
Hey, I'll try and keep this short.

Speaker 2 (01:20:26):
So I'm in a local small.

Speaker 6 (01:20:28):
Gun store a few months ago out on the East Side.
There's a couple of guys in there. I'm guessing early twenties.
One of them asked his friend, He said, Hey, what
time is it. The other guy says, there's a clock
right up there and points at it up on the wall.
The kid says, you know, I can't read that. It

(01:20:51):
was an analog clock. Should he be allowed to own
a firearm? I'll hang up and listen for your answer.

Speaker 4 (01:20:58):
Well, there's no federal or state law that says that
there's a certain educational requirement in order to exercise a
Second Amendment right and a regular analog as opposed to
digital clock. Somebody that doesn't hasn't ever been told how
to read the face of a clock. Doesn't give me
a lot of confidence in their education or intelligence.

Speaker 3 (01:21:21):
But I got five bucks. He voted for Kamala. Five bucks,
that says the guy that couldn't read the clock voted
for Kamala.

Speaker 4 (01:21:27):
Harris could be I mean, would you ask that same
question is should that guy be allowed to vote? Should
that guy be allowed to post on the internet? Should
that guy be allowed to express his opinion in public?
I mean, you know, if it's a constitutional right, it's
a constitutional right. So I don't know if your questions
rhetorical or not, but if it's a constitutional right, then
it is. Now you can lose that right. But there's

(01:21:47):
nothing about either state or federal law that says you
have to have a certain education or intelligence level in
order to possess a firearm.

Speaker 1 (01:21:56):
Tony, we're gonna give you the last word here, my friend, Tony,
we got guy Relford.

Speaker 4 (01:22:00):
Go ahead, Shy.

Speaker 9 (01:22:03):
I just have a question on open carrier of a
rifle or shotgun in public. How does that compared to
carrying a hanggun.

Speaker 4 (01:22:15):
Well, you know, since we've had constitutional carry as to handguns,
you don't need any kind of license or permit. But
there's never been a license or permit requirement to carry
a long gun, either on your person or in a
vehicle in public in Indiana. So there's nothing illegal.

Speaker 7 (01:22:31):
Now.

Speaker 4 (01:22:32):
You know, the open carry folks that like to you know,
go to you know, walk around downtown Indy with their
rifles or shotguns hung on a sling, there's nothing illegal
about that, and it's as they say, it's their right
to do it and it's not illegal. I question what
their agenda is and what they're really trying to accomplish,
because every time someone sees you walking around with your

(01:22:52):
ar around Monument Circle or in front of the State House,
somebody is going to go file a law, file a
bill to make that illegal, and I'm going to have
to be over there and against it in the General Assembly.
So I wonder what the objective is. But today there's
nothing illegal about possessing a long gun, a rifle or
a shotgun in public, including carrying it in public.

Speaker 1 (01:23:11):
Steve, Sorry, we couldn't get to your call. Brother. You
can call Guy Relford on Saturday and he will answer
any query that you have. When is the Gun Guy.

Speaker 4 (01:23:19):
Show five to seven on Saturdays. And now that you've established,
Jason that the phones work, so you got it with
producer Kurt, then yeah that I actually had my first
two callers this past Saturday, so I was cautiously optimistic
we could get that to work here today. But yeah,
give me a call five to seven on Saturdays, Steve.

Speaker 1 (01:23:38):
My brother called Guy Relford and he will answer your questions.

Speaker 5 (01:23:42):
Terry on away Wide, They'll be de saying you.

Speaker 1 (01:23:51):
Had to rest, don't you find No?

Speaker 3 (01:23:59):
I could have jumped in way earlier, but that's what
terrorists do. You don't interrupt the wayward sun.

Speaker 1 (01:24:05):
You just let it ride.

Speaker 3 (01:24:07):
Sammer and Nigel Show, I'm Jason Hammer, Big Nige's out guy,
Relford the gun guy, filling in.

Speaker 1 (01:24:15):
And let's go to the hotline. Bring on friend of
the show and part.

Speaker 3 (01:24:19):
Of the morning show on our sister sports station, Window
seven five the Fan Kevin Bowen, so.

Speaker 1 (01:24:25):
KB right out of the gate here.

Speaker 3 (01:24:27):
Million dollar question, Carly Orsay, does she blow out either
Ballard Steichen, either one or both?

Speaker 1 (01:24:36):
What do we think?

Speaker 2 (01:24:38):
Well, I wish I had stronger conviction on that. I
would say this.

Speaker 14 (01:24:44):
I don't know if I'm overwhelmingly holding my breath that
she will do something. And a lot of it, honestly
SEMs back to the trading guys in season when they
traded for Sardner and just the magnitude of what that
trade met for the organization.

Speaker 2 (01:24:57):
You basically said you believe.

Speaker 14 (01:24:58):
In Daniel Jones is your franch quarterback, and you said
you believed in Chris Ballard and change Siken and so
you know, two months later, do all of a sudden
you go back on that. That's probably where I have
a little bit of pause. But I'm obviously there's ample evidence,
certainly to fire Ballard. You can make a case for
stiking as well, especially if you believe that you tie
the GM the head coach at the head. It'd be

(01:25:20):
you know, rather astonishing and I'd be rather unprecedented to
see a GM with ballads resume get a ten to year.
But I'm not holding my breath necessarily. They'll be ample changes.

Speaker 3 (01:25:30):
Yeah, it feels like there are two different things at
play here, Kevin. There's the football perspective, there's the business perspective,
and football wise, you're right, maybe Carly did sign off
on that trade.

Speaker 1 (01:25:43):
I would imagine she had to have done that.

Speaker 3 (01:25:45):
And you don't have two first round picks, you don't
have a star quarterback. Who do you bring in that's better?
But just from a business perspective, I think they may
be at risk of losing the fan base if you
run it back one more time.

Speaker 1 (01:26:00):
You see what I'm saying.

Speaker 14 (01:26:01):
Well, and I think business too, Hammer, I mean, Sunday
will be the eleventh year, eleven year anniversary since their
last home playoff game, I mean eleven years ago. I
didn't exercise on our morning to the other day of
going through all the sporting events Lucas Oil Stadium. Lucas
Ol Stadium has had a swim meet in it since
you know, the last time the Colts hosted a home
playoff game. Like, you want to talk finances, you want

(01:26:23):
to talk you know, dollars and cents. I mean, twenty
five NFL teams have hosted a home playoff game since
the Colts last have, so I think that kind of
adds to the to the financial element of it.

Speaker 4 (01:26:36):
kV. When I heard that you were going to be
on and I was sitting in for Nigel today, first
thing I thought of I couldn't wait to talk to you,
is were you at all surprised that Philip Rivers still
started the game yesterday after the Colts were eliminated from
the playoffs. A lot of people were looking at that
at the time. To put a healthy Riley Leonard in

(01:26:59):
the game, get him some reps, get him a little experience.
And I'm not sure where Ar's vision is and his health,
but a lot of people were saying, hey, yeah, when
we still had a potential shot. Bringing in Rivers made
some sense, But what was the reason for him to
play against Jacksonville yesterday after the Colts were eliminated.

Speaker 2 (01:27:19):
Yeah, it's a question. I feel that a lot.

Speaker 14 (01:27:21):
So basically, I think the thought was throughout the week,
once the Colts were officially eliminated.

Speaker 2 (01:27:26):
What was that seven thirty Saturday.

Speaker 14 (01:27:28):
Night, At that point you are what you know, Yeah,
eighteen hours, twelve hours away from kickoff the next day.

Speaker 2 (01:27:34):
So I understand sticking with Rivers.

Speaker 14 (01:27:36):
Not that the Colts had ample practice time last week
with the holiday, but you know, practice wise and throughout
the meetings, you know, it was always Rivers being the starter.
So I'm not maybe, as you know, whatever thought that
they should.

Speaker 2 (01:27:47):
Have changed it at the last second.

Speaker 14 (01:27:50):
Now for Sunday, I don't need to see Philip Rivers
and you know, Rocky four or however.

Speaker 2 (01:27:55):
You want to describe it here running.

Speaker 14 (01:27:57):
Out there against the Houston Texans, you know, to me
to get the Richardson part of the question, I think
the vision limitations are real right now, and I think
there are some legit questions about how that would look
in a game setting.

Speaker 2 (01:28:09):
And not to mention it's the number one ranked defense in.

Speaker 14 (01:28:11):
The NFL, so I think that is more at play here. Yes,
do I think the Colts are largely or Shane Second
is largely probably done with him. Yeah, that's probably fair
as well. But I do think the actual you know,
orbital injury impacting his vision, all of that is a
real serious element.

Speaker 2 (01:28:25):
But it is time to see Riley Leonard, particularly if
Daniel Jones.

Speaker 14 (01:28:29):
If you are going to run it back and you
think Daniel Jones is going to be ready early in
the season, there's no guarantee he's ready for Week one.
You could need Riley Leonard in the month of September
next year. Potentially it starts some games. So I think
it'd be you know, good for him to get his
first NFL start coming up on Sunday.

Speaker 4 (01:28:44):
Now you mentioned Daniel Jones. What in frontmation do you
have on his contract situation? Right, because he was just
under a one year contract for this year then blew
the Achilles. You think that could bring him back signing
for another year next year?

Speaker 5 (01:28:58):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (01:28:58):
I think again soon, I mean, they bring everybody back.

Speaker 14 (01:29:01):
I think that's where signs are pointing. Obviously, the financial
hit that he took you know once he went down
that injury was rather significant. You know, millions, I would
assume dollars, So, you know, I think it's probably impacted
the length of the contract again, certainly how much money
annually he would get. But I would assume Daniel Jones
is your quarterback here for twenty twenty tick down. If

(01:29:22):
you blow it up, I mean, who the hell knows.
I mean, at that point, you know, no one's safe, frankly,
but if they bring this back, I would think that
Daniel Jones will be the guy for the vast majority.

Speaker 2 (01:29:32):
Of next season.

Speaker 3 (01:29:33):
And Kevin, I was listening to your program this morning.
You make a great point, there's really no reason to
just blow it up in tank because you don't have
the number one pick. You don't have your first round
pick next year at all. So you might as well say, look,
we got a pretty good running back. We feel like

(01:29:53):
he's one of the best in the league. We've got
a pretty good guard, We've got a really good rookie
tight end here. Let's just try to hatch things up
and see what can happen. Is that where we're at
with this franchise.

Speaker 14 (01:30:05):
Well, I think that would be the thought process in
running it back for next season. I don't necessarily agree
with that, to be clear, but I think internally that
could be the thought process because you know, again you
are banking basically the col You know people that are saying, hey,
running back or whatever, they're talking this up to some injuries. Well,
I mean Daniel Jones coming off the torn achilles, the
Forest Buckner needed next surgery at the age of thirty.

(01:30:27):
I don't like next and surgeries in thirty year.

Speaker 1 (01:30:30):
Olds in football.

Speaker 2 (01:30:31):
That is just not a great combination.

Speaker 14 (01:30:33):
Taveria's Ward is dealt with three concussions in the last
year and has had a slew of just frankly tragic
off the field stuff happened to him as well. Like,
that's just a lot to be banking on. You know,
one eighties for example happening. And you know, as much
as we play this game in this market, what do
you think they're saying in Kansas City about their quarterback.
What do you think they're saying in Cincinnati about their quarterback?
What do you think they're saying in Baltimore about their quarterback.

(01:30:55):
I mean, three teams that very well could miss the playoffs.
Two of them are definitely out and they all half
quarterbacks that have you know, played you know, deep into
the playoffs and in Super Bowls and won Super Bowls,
and you know, they all will probably be saying a
similar you know tune if you will. So that's why
I just don't think it's a stap of your fingers
and then boom them all of a sudden, you know,
the resume of you know again, no division titles in

(01:31:18):
eleven years, no playoff wins in eight years, no playoff
appearances in five years, All of a sudden, it's.

Speaker 1 (01:31:23):
Going to stop, Kevin.

Speaker 3 (01:31:24):
We talk a lot about Chris Ballard and how, for
whatever reason he has been able to survive. He's been
a survivor despite not really winning much. Here, let's look
at Shane steiken Here at the beginning of this year,
the offense was clicking, everybody was happy, but it was

(01:31:45):
such a major meltdown down the stretch. You had the
overtime situation in Kansas City. Some of the decision making
that steike In makes. Is he on the hot seat
along with Ballard?

Speaker 14 (01:32:00):
Yeah, you know, oftentimes you tie the GM and the
head coach together, but their resumes are vastly different in
terms of years. It's a nine for Ballard, three for Psychens.
I think that's what makes it difficult, Like if you're
handing out individual grades to each, I think Ballard gets
the worst grade than psych and not that Psychan gets this,
you know, overwhelmingly great grade. I guess if you want
to look at Shane's resume, it's three years, it's a

(01:32:22):
five hundred record at this point, exactly twenty five and
twenty five. Certainly the quarterback situation has an awful whole
lot of favor.

Speaker 2 (01:32:28):
Some of that is his own doing, some of that
is not. And if you look at specifically within the division,
you know.

Speaker 14 (01:32:34):
He's two and nine against Houston Jacksonville and that's a
really kind of sore eye for me. When you look
at Houston and Jacksonville, don't look at them.

Speaker 2 (01:32:43):
It's necessarily the you know, the class of the NFL
by any means.

Speaker 14 (01:32:46):
So again, I you know, I am probably a little
bit more in the If again, trying them at the
hip is probably the way to go. But if not,
I think the Ballad resume is much uglier than the
Psyching resume. But we don't have a lot of arranged marriages,
if you will in the NFL. That work out, and
the arranged marriage would be you're bringing a new GM

(01:33:07):
and say hey, here's your head coach.

Speaker 2 (01:33:09):
You know, maybe bring the new GM and you say, hey,
evaluate this guy. But it just it rarely works out.

Speaker 14 (01:33:15):
So that's where I do have some questions about exactly, again,
how willing are they to really really blow it up
and exactly what will a.

Speaker 2 (01:33:24):
Week from Monday look like. Do they just use the
same letter that they used last year when they said run.

Speaker 1 (01:33:28):
It back one more thing here before you lets you go, guy,
go ahead.

Speaker 4 (01:33:31):
I was just going to say, isn't it also a
factor in terms of blowing it up? I think I
think a team is less inclined to blow it up
when you don't have a first round draft pick for
the next two years, because when you blow it up,
what are you replacing it with in terms of personnel,
you know, for whoever you would bring in, both as
coach and as general manager. I just think that gets

(01:33:53):
that gets tough when your prospects down the road are
so limited by having lost those two picks.

Speaker 2 (01:33:59):
Yeah, it's a good point.

Speaker 14 (01:34:00):
It's certainly a less than advantageous situation, But at the
end of the day, there's thirty two of these, and yes,
it does it help to have the first round picks. Certainly,
I'm not going to deny that. But you know what,
if you wanted to, you could take some of the
pieces on this roster right now, with them beloved colts
frankly that have been here for a while, and you
could trade them and potentially add to a few.

Speaker 2 (01:34:21):
More of those picks.

Speaker 14 (01:34:22):
To me, like all of a sudden, sitting here and saying, well,
you bring everybody back, because it'd be the disservice to
a new end because you didn't you don't have first
round picks, I'm kind of like, well, that's that's a
little bit of an odd way to do it. I mean,
if Iral Chris Ballard and that trade was presented to
me two months back, I would say, I'm doing this
trade one hundred times out of one hundred. If it's
going to guarantee me job security because it ham strings

(01:34:43):
the guy after me, then of course I'm gonna do
this trade because it's going to get me in two
to three years, even if it doesn't work out. And
right now, you know, due to injury, the trade hasn't
worked out, So again I understand it's maybe a little
bit of a disservice to the next person. But at
the same time, I don't think that also means it's
an endorsement on the current guy, that he should you
have one in the pro column if you will making

(01:35:04):
the pros and the cont.

Speaker 3 (01:35:05):
List and Riley Leonard hearing chatter he might get to
start Sunday. Is that what we're looking at?

Speaker 14 (01:35:11):
Boy?

Speaker 2 (01:35:11):
That is my assumption.

Speaker 14 (01:35:13):
But hammer when I spoke about that on the morning
show today and then listening to Shane psych in this
afternoon in his press conference, I don't know, it seemed
like the door is a little bit open to Philip Rivers.
I don't know if he was trying to do the
nice thing on the way out the door, but it
definitely sounded like Shane was a little bit more open
to that, and it almost sounded like it's a conversation
that maybe Rivers needed to have, which I don't necessarily think.

Speaker 2 (01:35:35):
That's the way to go.

Speaker 14 (01:35:36):
So I'm a little more torn. I assume it was
going to be Leonard, but a little bit more torn
after listening to Shane. Sounds like decision will come tomorrow
and we'll see exactly who it's going to be like
I said earlier, I don't think we need to see
the Philip Rivers thing.

Speaker 2 (01:35:50):
Hell of a movie, inspirational all of it. But there's
a reason why the Rocky movies got worse.

Speaker 4 (01:35:56):
Man, if I'm about forty four year old quarterback, do
i want to see that pass rush from Houston? All right?
Those guys are on it man there. I mean, I
hate Houston with a passion, but those two defensive ends
are fun to watch.

Speaker 14 (01:36:08):
No, that is I would say, you know what, being
a parents at ten kids sounds better than that.

Speaker 1 (01:36:12):
Which what's coming up on the Big Show tomorrow?

Speaker 4 (01:36:16):
KB?

Speaker 14 (01:36:17):
Yeah, so we'll continue to recap a lot of this,
you know, certainly more in the big picture. We'll actually
get a little boots on the ground on Pasadena with
a Rose Bowl coming up on Thursday, so we'll do
that at eight thirty of Rick Carlisle should join us
at some point the nine o'clock hour.

Speaker 2 (01:36:28):
They've got a late one tonight in.

Speaker 14 (01:36:30):
Houston, so we'll chat with him coming up a little
bit later on the show tomorrow.

Speaker 1 (01:36:33):
Check out the Morning Show. KB is a part of it.
At one o seven five. Defan Kevin Bowen, we appreciate.

Speaker 2 (01:36:38):
You happy to you boys.

Speaker 1 (01:36:40):
Thanks guy, game to you and Moonshine Monday. Next man
to a Samploom place. Moonsh oh yeah, the last Moonshine

(01:37:01):
of twenty twenty five. I'm Jason Hammer the gun guys here,
Guy Ralford. Now here's what we have to do.

Speaker 3 (01:37:09):
Guy, We've each got a little uh something something I
purchased at the store this morning, A little old smoky.

Speaker 1 (01:37:16):
What's the flavor you got?

Speaker 4 (01:37:18):
BlackBerry?

Speaker 1 (01:37:18):
I'm excited about this BlackBerry old smoky. But in order
to keep all the Karens happy that are in the hallways,
we have to step away from the microphone and then
do a cheers. Okay, so I'm gonna step back here.

Speaker 3 (01:37:33):
I'm gonna have to scream real loud because it can't
be anywhere near a microphone.

Speaker 1 (01:37:37):
Okay, you listen, Big Todd Dyer. Nobody's near a microphone.
Jan Ralphord, cheers Happy twenty twenty six.

Speaker 2 (01:37:46):
And to your brother, WHOA.

Speaker 1 (01:38:00):
To quote Rick Flair, WHOA what'd you think?

Speaker 13 (01:38:04):
That was?

Speaker 4 (01:38:05):
Just damn good man. That's just outstanding.

Speaker 3 (01:38:08):
That is some good shine right there. And I get
like the Moonshine people are like if you bought at
it in a store. It's not really shine.

Speaker 4 (01:38:16):
I get it.

Speaker 3 (01:38:17):
Last couple of weeks, we've had friends and family that
have made a little back alley shine and brought that
in highly illegal, but that's okay.

Speaker 1 (01:38:27):
We've enjoyed that. But when your supply runs out, sometimes
you got to go to the store. So I wasn't
gonna let.

Speaker 3 (01:38:35):
The final Monday of twenty twenty five go without doing
another Moonshine Monday.

Speaker 4 (01:38:42):
Guy.

Speaker 1 (01:38:42):
There's a new.

Speaker 3 (01:38:43):
Survey out a list of normal, everyday things that feel
illegal but are not.

Speaker 1 (01:38:50):
Okay, tell me if these make sense to you.

Speaker 3 (01:38:52):
According to a survey, these are normal, every day, totally
illegal things, but they feel dirty.

Speaker 1 (01:38:59):
They feel illegal.

Speaker 3 (01:39:01):
Walking through a store and leaving without buying anything, Oh totally.

Speaker 4 (01:39:05):
I mean I always feel like somebody's eyeballing me, going, okay,
what's this dude shoplifting? Because he came in, he's not
going back out through the cash register. And I expect
to get padded down every time I do that.

Speaker 3 (01:39:17):
Keeping it in the store, bringing in your own water bottle,
Like if you're drinking a water bottle or a soda
bottle or something from your car and you're walking around
the grocery.

Speaker 4 (01:39:27):
Store, with it. That is not that I've ever done that,
but I don't think that would bother me.

Speaker 5 (01:39:32):
Now.

Speaker 4 (01:39:32):
They do tend to frown upon it when I bring
in my own beer into the bar. They tend to
not care for that much at all.

Speaker 3 (01:39:39):
And last one here passing a police car on the highway,
even if you're doing the speed limit, Like it's always
a little nerve racking when you're trying to pass a
slow moving police car but you're doing the speed limit. Now,
I think you and I are both a couple of
guys who have gotten tickets before. Oh yeah, were not

(01:40:00):
the best people to be talking about this. Hey, my man,
guy Ralpher, thank you so much. Hope you had a
good time.

Speaker 4 (01:40:06):
I had a great time. I always look forward to this.

Speaker 3 (01:40:08):
One more hour to go The Hammer and Nigel Show.
We're coming right back ninety three WIBC