The Gun Guy - Full show - 7/26/25

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of
a free state, the right of the people to keep
in their arms shall not be infringed. This is the
Second Amendment, and this is the Gun Guy a boom.

Speaker 2 (00:16):
Boom boom boom bang bang bang bang boom, boom, boom,
boom bang bang bom.

Speaker 3 (00:25):
Guy Ralford on ninety three WYBC.

Speaker 4 (00:30):
And good afternoon, and welcome to the Gun Guy Show
here on ninety three WYBC. Thrilled to have you with us.
A lot to talk about, lot, lot lot going on
on the two way landscape that I'm excited to get into.
Interesting case that just came out of Beach Grove, new
criminal case filed in Marion County. This got some publicity yesterday.

(00:52):
I posted about it on my Twitter or x account
and you can check that out at Guy Ralph. If
you haven't followed me there, please do. Trying to build
that following. But got a lot of attention in the media.
Hammer Nigel talked about it a little bit and I'm
sure we'll visit it on Monday Gunday on Hammer and

(01:15):
Nigel at three point thirty five on Monday. But this
is a case where a person has now been arrested
gentleman named Jonathan Moser of Beechgrove after a lady called
police called nine one one and reported that Moser, who
was somewhat of a neighbor lived there close to her

(01:38):
in Beech Grove, had shot her cat. And listen, when
I teach the Essentials of Indiana Gun Law class that
you hear me pitching off in here on the Gun
Guy Show. Whenever I get into the issue of defending
your animals or what force has justified, I'd say, if

(02:00):
someone's trying to hurt your animal and you want to
prevent it. If there's anything where people get upset about
the state of the law and often want to argue
with me understandably, is when I tell him what is
and isn't justified and legal when it comes to defending
your pets. And this is a little different issue here,

(02:22):
which is what crime is involved if someone else injures
or God forbid, has happened in this case Jonathan Moser
allegedly according to authorities, and he's now been booked and
is a criminal case pending in Mary County for actually

(02:44):
killing this cat. And it's a level sixth family. It's
killing a domestic animal. If you knowingly kill a domestic
animal without consent, I'm sure that rules out euthanasia and
whatnot of your animal, But you kill a domestic animal intentionally,
that's the level sixth family. And so what's interesting about

(03:08):
this case and probably why it got the amount of
attention that it did, is the Fox fifty nine headline
that a lot of us saw. And this is the
article that I posted on X. He's claiming self defense
against the cat. He said he was walking his dog.
And this is all according to the Fox fifty nine report,
which again you can find on my Twitter or X account.

(03:30):
I should do what Tony Cass does. He just always
says Twitter X. In that way, he's covered no matter
what people happen to be calling it these days. But
as posted on my Twitter X, I'll go with that.
The Fox fifty nine article says he was walking his dog.
He was reportedly walking his dog, according to mister Moser,

(03:50):
and the cat attacked them. And the initial report that
he gave to police after the cat owner found her
cat shot and dead and called nine one one, the
initial report that mister Moser gave was that the cat
had attacked him and his dog and he was acting
in self defense, and the article referred to the fact

(04:14):
that authorities saw that he had some scratches on one arm,
which would apparently support his claim of self defense. And
what I've mentioned in my class, my Essentials of Indiana
Gunglaw class, several times, and people never like hearing this
is that the law of self defense and the particular

(04:34):
justification for the use of force, including deadly force in
self defense the law of self defense in Indiana and
the Self Defense Statute. And if you want to read
it and pull it right up, just google it. It's
thirty five dash forty one dash three dash two and
there's several different subsections. One I call the General Self
Defense Statutes. In sub session C talks about what would

(04:57):
apply here outside your home, and it talks about using force,
including deadly force, to prevent serious bodily injury to you
or another person. But it says against another person. There's
no mention in the Self Defense Statute in terms of
justifying the use of deadly force or any force at all.

(05:20):
There's no mention of animals. It's just not in there.
And whenever I mentioned that to people, people tend to
get upset, saying hold on, and I've had a bunch
of cases. And I'll get into this here on the
show because it's a recurrent issue and a lot of
people in Indiana have faced this. People say, hold on,
I'm out walking my dog, or I'm on a walk

(05:42):
or a bicycle ride with my wife, and listen, I
get it. I have bicycled and walked a lot. My
wife and I will go out and will go on
long walks around our Zionsville neighborhood, and we have on
many occasions gone out bicycling and people then, either from

(06:04):
experience or hypothetically, say, hold on, an aggressive dog comes
at me, snarling and barking and rushing at me. Or
one gentleman called me and said he was out taking
a walk with his granddaughter. It's like four year old
granddaughter and they're just todd along along, minding their own business,
and a great, big, angry dog. I don't like to

(06:27):
name breeds, by the way. I'm a dog lover, and
as I may have mentioned over the years, and people
want to demonize certain breeds of dogs, I don't really
believe in that. I think there are many more, many,
many more bad dog owners than there are bad dog breeds,
but a big aggressive dog, typically associated with a trained
guard dog. It comes rushing at him and his granddaughter

(06:49):
from across someone's yard, slobbering and snarling and barking and
rushing straight at me. He says, are you telling me
I can't shoot that dog? And that's not what I'm saying.
And I'll get into more detail on this, because again,
it's a recurrent issue. I mean, how many of us,
especially at my advanced old age, haven't spent a lot

(07:10):
of time outdoors a lot of times walking around run.
I'm kind of past my running days. My knees don't
get real happy if I go out and try to jog.
I still try it on occasion and usually regret that
hell out of it. But having done that a lot
over the years as a recovering athlete from in my

(07:32):
younger days, hey, I've had a lot of aggressive I've
been bit by dogs on a couple of differentcasions. I
got one pretty decent scar on one calf when I
was a kid. Dog came up, got ahold of my calf,
wouldn't let go, tore me up pretty good. So it's
a recurrent issue. So what I'm saying is not so
much that there's nothing you can do. What I'm saying

(07:54):
is you can't claim self defense because self defense doesn't apply.
And so what happens if you, let's say, shoot an
aggressive dog, are you going to jail? Well, a case
that I've defended now multiple times, i'd have to add
them up going back through my files, I'd say probably

(08:16):
seven or eight times in my forty three years as
a lawyer. A case I've now repeatedly defended is someone
who shoots at or shoots an aggressive dog in a
residential area or at least somewhere where there are other
houses other people around, and they've been prosecuted. The cases

(08:37):
I've had been prosecuted for criminal recklessness of the deadly weapon.
Not so much for shooting the dog, which is the
issue in mister Moser's case in Beech Grove, which we'll
get back into, but because by shooting a gun in
a residential area where there are other people in the
immediate area, or in the direction of other people, or
in close proximity to another person, then that gunshot, even

(09:03):
though they were shooting or shooting at an aggressive animal,
actually endangered someone in the area, and for that reason,
constitutes criminal recklessness with a deadly weapon, which is a
level sixth felony. When they've said, hold on, I wasn't
shooting at or near any other person. I was shooting
the angry, snarling, barking, aggressive dog trying to maim me

(09:29):
or a loved one. I didn't endanger anyone. But they've
been prosecuted and they've had to hire a lawyer. That's
no fun and it can certainly be expensive. Does that
mean they're guilty? Oh hell no. In fact, i've never
seen one of those cases result in an actual criminal conviction,
and I can go into why that is. But then

(09:49):
there's a separate problem that mister Moser has in Beech Grove,
and I'm not saying he's guilty of anything. I think
the facts of that, especially since he had scratch is
on his arm. And hey, listen, I've been I hate
to admit it. Yes, I've been attacked by a cat before. Now.
It was my sister's cat and it leapt off the

(10:13):
top of the refrigerator late at night when I was
raiding the refrigerator for a snack, and I'm sure that
I had, as a young teenager at the time, inspired
the hostility displayed by that cat. Under the circumstances, I
didn't like the cat. I still don't like cats, and
I wasn't particularly friendly toward the cat. The cat didn't

(10:34):
like me. I didn't like the cat. And so one
night I was getting into the refrigerator and from on
top of the refrigerator it was a black cat. I
couldn't see it up there. All of a sudden, I
see this thing, all four legs extended and claws fully engaged.
This thing is descending on my head. And it was

(10:54):
not a pleasant experience. And it took quite a bit
of energy to get the thing off me and get
its of me. So are are Are you legally defenseless
if attacked by an animal, and in this case a cat,
not necessarily. That's what we'll go into, and as we
always do, take your calls with questions or comments. Three

(11:18):
one seven two three nine ninety three ninety three three
one seven two three nine ninety three ninety three. And
by the way, I'm just getting into the discussion. Don't
draw any conclusions. Don't send me angry messages, whether it's
on the YouTube feed or otherwise about I must be
an idiot because I'm saying you can't defend yourself. That's
not what I'm saying. And there's more to the discussion.

(11:40):
I'm just saying that self defense quote unquote in Indiana
does not include defending yourself against an animal because it's
simply not in the self defense Statute. But we'll get
into more of what alternative issues there are and another
argument that can certainly be made with success in Indiana
when we come back. Give us a call, join the discussion.

(12:01):
Three one seven two three nine ninety three, ninety three,
three one seven, ninety three, ninety three. This is Guy
Ralford on The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WIBC.

Speaker 3 (12:18):
Second to nine on this second amendment.

Speaker 1 (12:20):
This is the Gun Guy with Guy Ralford on ninety
three WYBC.

Speaker 4 (12:26):
And welcome back. I'm Guy Ralford on the Gun Guy
Show on ninety three WYBC, and we're talking about the
case of Oreo was the name of the cat in
Beech Grove that was killed by a gentleman who's not
being charged with intentional killing of a domestic animal, which
is a felony. And I don't have any problem with that.

(12:48):
By the way, Like I said, I'm a I'm a
dog owner. Currently have two dogs in my house, beautiful
Golden Retriever that my son Craig actually owned. Love that dog.
And I have a totally unidentifiable mutt named Wrigley who's
also even though nobody can figure out what kind of
breed she is, is a fabulous dog as well. And listen,

(13:12):
somebody attempts to do harm to my dog, they're going
to have a problem if I'm anywhere in the area.
But what's the law around this area?

Speaker 5 (13:21):
Now?

Speaker 4 (13:21):
Again, the gentleman who's being charged with a crime, mister
Jonathan Moser, I believe it is in Beech Grove is
claiming self defense. Well, self defense, as I mentioned before,
the break isn't included in a self defense statute as
far as justifying the use of force or in this case,
deadly force against an animal, only force against another person.
So does that mean you're completely out of luck? I'm

(13:43):
walking along and an aggressive dog comes and tries to
attack me, attack my wife or another loved one. Again,
something tugs at my heart strings. I have five grandkids.
When my grandkids is with me, a snarling, slobbery and
marking aggressive odd christ to hurt one of my grandkids
I'm sorry, the dog's gonna get hurt. It don't get
hurt every time. But what are the legal ramifications of that?

(14:07):
Self defense isn't really on the table, So am I
completely out of luck? Well the answers, No, Indiana has
another doctrine, and this is a matter of common law,
meaning it's not in the self defense statute, is created
by case law. But it makes all the sense in
the world, and it's called the doctrine of necessity. And

(14:30):
people don't hear a lot about this. In fact, I
just decided, after looking at this cat case in Beach
Grow it's violin Mary Counting. I thought, you know what,
I need to include this. And we always struggle to
get the course completely in in the time allotted for
essentials of Indiana gun law. But I think this is

(14:50):
an important point, and I think it's I think it
makes the grade for what I consider to be an
essential point of Indiana gun law. And it's the first
time I've discussed it here on the Gun Guy Show,
which is the Doctor of Necessity says you can do
something that would otherwise be illegal if it is necessary
under the circumstances and results in lesser harm. This is

(15:13):
lesser harm and a cosmic sense, lesser harm to everyone
involved than if you didn't do the illegal thing. So
it's a really common sense example because it's not self defense.
It's different than that. Let's say, let's say someone, an unarmed,

(15:36):
defenseless person is is being being attacked in a road
rage situation, and they're being pursued and they've done nothing
to instigate this. They're not the initial aggressor, but someone's
chasing them in a way that that that that that
puts them in fear of of dying, or let's go

(16:00):
to the next let's go to the next level. So
we're not just talking about classic road rage, which I've
talked about many times, but someone's actually, say, shooting at
them as they're driving around four to sixty five, and
that person then drives very very fast in a way
that could easily be called reckless driving, which is a crime,
but they're doing so simply to get away. It's not

(16:23):
self defense because it's not using force against another person.
But they meet the definition of criminal recklesses or it's
not pardon me not criminal recklessness, reckless driving because of
how fast they're driving and the manner in which they're
driving simply trying to get away because someone's shooting at them.
If they got prosecuted for reckless driving, they could say,

(16:46):
hold on, under the circumstances getting shot, dying from a
gunshot wound on the highway from someone actively shooting at me,
was the much greater harm was likely to result for
me driving too fast on the interstate. Now a jury
could look at that and say they'd reject that because
the greater harm could be causing a multi car pile

(17:08):
up and killing multiple people. And that's a greater harm
than would have resulted from you simply getting shot. So
the jury, if you were prosecuted and brought to trial,
would be free to reject that argument. But it's an
argument you can make. And an actual better argument is
in the context we're talking about, which is, yes, I'm

(17:31):
shooting at an animal. Now that is that intentional killing
of a domestic animal. Well, yeah, it's a domestic animal.
It's a dog, for instance, or in this case, cat
certainly appears to be a domestic animal, and I'm shooting
at it, so my intentionally trying to kill it. Well, yes,
I'm using a firearm to shoot a dog or a cat.

(17:52):
Logic would indicate that I'm likely to kill it if
I shoot it. But can I argue the necessity? Can
I argue necessity because that aggressive dog or Oreo, the
trained attack cat in Beech Grove, was trying to injure me,

(18:12):
and the greater harm would have been getting mauled or again,
very compelling argument, my young granddaughter getting malled by an
aggressive dog. It was it was the much greater harm
to allow her to be maled or killed, as opposed
to killing the dog which instigated the event, owned by

(18:35):
a person who didn't follow local ordinances by keeping the
dog contained in the yard or otherwise on a leash.
So the greater harm would have resulted from my granddaughter
getting mauled, which would allow me then to do something
that would otherwise be illegal under the doctrine of necessity.
That's how that works. Now, is that a lay down

(18:58):
defense in every case is a prosecutor like Ryan Muir
is going to buy that necessarily all open questions. It's
certainly not a lay down defense. It's gonna be a
fact question at the end of the day that a
prosecutor would have to decide whether that's something they really
want to pursue in terms of trying to get beyond
that defense and whether they be able to convince a

(19:20):
jury to convict. Notwithstanding the argument to what was done,
which would otherwise be illegal, is allowed under the doctrine
of necessity. But that's the argument. It's different than self defense.
But it's funny. I didn't answer my own question I

(19:42):
posted on Twitter X. I posted that, Well, what I
did is I shared the Fox fifty nine story about
the man of Beech Grove killing Oreo, the trained attack cat,
I say facetiously and claiming so defense, and I just said,
did you know? I love asking questions and just allowing

(20:05):
the comments to kind of take off from there on
social media, I just posted, did you know the Indiana
self defense statue does not justify the use of force
against an animal? Only quote another person? As I expected,
the comments got pretty entertaining from there. But that's a

(20:28):
doctrine of necessity, and it's something I haven't discussed before
here on the Gun Guy Show. And I do think
it warrants some discussion because it answers the question of
hold on, do I have to just get maulked? But
by the way, a topic that I do cover in
Essentials of Indiana gun Law, and I'll continue to do
that as well as as adding a brief discussion on

(20:49):
the doctrine of necessity, which we just talked about. So
in preparing, if you're going out on a walk in
your neighborhood, you're going on a bicycle ride, and you're
going on a jog on the the Monon Trail or
some other location where yes, there is a possibility that
some knucklehead pet owner doesn't have their pet under control
and you're going to get potentially attacked or threatened with

(21:14):
an attack by an aggressive animal, including an aggressive dog.
Does that mean there's there's nothing you can do to
prepare for that other than carrying your gun. No, not
at all. And it's something that I have talked about
in my classes, haven't addressed so much here on the show,
But given this case coming out of Beach Grove, I
think that's an appropriate discussion right now, though, we're going
to take a break and we'll go to the phone lines.
I think we've had a couple of people call. We'll

(21:36):
answer your questions and allow you to air your comments
here in just a bit. Give us a call. Three
one seven two three nine ninety three ninety three. By
the way, I understand the phone lines we're not working
during the Home and Garden Show this morning nine to one.
But apparently our our our, our our on call engineers
around here on WIBC have gotten that fixed, which I'm

(21:57):
glad to hear. So give us a call. Three one
seven two three nine ninety three ninety three. This is
Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy Show on ninety three
wib SUIT.

Speaker 1 (22:10):
The show about gun rights, gun safety and responsible gun ownership.
This is the Gun Guy with Guy Ralford and on
ninety three WYDC.

Speaker 4 (22:20):
And welcome back. I'm Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy
Show on ninety three WIBC. And so we've had a
couple of callers. Let's go to the phone lines, and
our pal Buzz has called in. Buzz, Welcome to the
Gun Guy Show.

Speaker 6 (22:32):
A good afternoon, Thank you, sirredy Oh.

Speaker 7 (22:36):
I live by a railroad track and I have seen
it with my own eyes.

Speaker 8 (22:42):
But what about a wild coyote walk in.

Speaker 6 (22:45):
The fence line and coming after mine little five pound
Heinz fifty seven dog.

Speaker 4 (22:53):
Yeah right, I got one of those Henes fifty seven's myself. Well,
you say what about it. What can you do?

Speaker 5 (23:00):
Good?

Speaker 9 (23:00):
Well, I wanted I'm going to shoot it. It's understood.
Buzz well yeah, let me let me tell you what's
involved here. And I've had this case. And first of all,
d n R says that coyotes are considered a nuisance
animal and can be can be killed as nuisance animals

(23:21):
at at at any time of the year. There's not
a hunting season for instance, they're they're they're considered nuisance
and for that reason can be shot legally. However, the
separate problem that you potentially have is exactly what I
mentioned earlier in the show, which is the argument that

(23:42):
if it's railroad track, you know it runs alongside or
near a residential area, and somebody reports a gunshot, you
may have discharging a firearm within the city limits, which
typically just an ordnance violation that means it's just a fine.
But then separately, you've got potentially criminal recklessness with a
deadly weapon to the extent that your gun shot shooting

(24:03):
the coyote or at the coyote, especially if you miss,
and that bullet goes bouncing off the ground or a
railroad tire or whatever it might be, and travels some
other place. If that shot endangers a human being who's
in the area, then that's prosecutable as criminal recklessness with

(24:24):
a deadly weapon. And I've had that case in terms
of people actually having criminal charges filed against them. That's why,
for instance, it's the same discussion people talk about warning shots.
You know, there are people out there still not particularly
smart people, but there are people out there that talk about, oh, yeah, well,
you should always fire a warning shot. You know, if

(24:44):
there's someone who's potentially threatening you or you're scared of
a potential attack. Warning shots are a really really really
bad idea. And it's a different issue, but it's a
big overlap here, which is that I've seen now multiple
people I've defended the cases. I have a client right
now and appending case. Someone was trying to break into

(25:06):
his car. He saw him on a security camera. Car
was under a car port in a residential neighborhood. He
walked out there the guy was trying to get into
his car. He yelled at the guy, expecting him to
run away. The guy did not run away. He just
stood up and stared at the guy at my client.
My client then pointed the gun at the ground off
to the side of the driveway and shot around into

(25:28):
the soft dirt next to the driveway. That's when the
other guy took off running. My client called nine one
one said, want to let you know there was a
guy here. I've got him on my security camera. He
was trying to break into my car. He was acting
erratically in the sense that he essentially challenged me, didn't
run away, just stared at me when I told him

(25:50):
to get away from my car, and I fired a
warning shot, at which point he left.

Speaker 4 (25:55):
They did. They charged my client with criminal recklessens with
the weapon for firing the shot, saying well, that shot
could have been dangered someone in the area. Is that
is that?

Speaker 8 (26:06):
Is that?

Speaker 4 (26:07):
Is that a good case? By the way, are they
gonna win that case? Get into that in just a
bit as a bit of a separate topic. But but
so there's a there's there's there's a risk there was
what I would be prepared to do now with a coyote,
And and and we've seen rabid coyotes certainly be aggressive.
The stories of that, I've certainly not observed that personally.

(26:31):
We've seen very very rare situations of coyotes being aggressive
toward towards human beings, many many more stories of dog bites,
but I would certainly be prepared because that's something I
think about. You know, my dog often wants to go
out at three or four in the morning. That's usually
because I've already gotten up in the middle of the night.
Being an old man, that tends to happen I get

(26:52):
up in the middle of the night. Well, then the
dog wants to go out, and I'll sit there, and
I've got a high lumin flashlight there on the night stand,
and and I have my master bedrooms that door that
leads right out onto the deck on the first floor,
and I tend to open the door, let the dog out,
and shine light in the backyard, just see if I
see any little eyes reflecting back at me, because I

(27:14):
certainly have heard coyotes in and around my neighborhood before,
and I've thought about, all right, well, I let the
dog out. I don't see any coyotes. But then I
hear the dog yelping and barking, and in some indication
of its being attacked. I run out there, and I
have a suppressed firearm next to my bed. When I

(27:36):
go to sleep, I grab my suppressed firearm. I run
out there and there's a coyote that's got a hold
of my dogs trying to drag it off. Do I
run a risk of being prosecuted if I shoot that
coyote in my neighborhood. Yes, that's the whole point with
this discussion. I do bear that risk. So what I
would be absolutely prepared to do in that circumstance to

(28:00):
explain to any responding police officers exactly the angle of
my shot, what was beyond my shot. That's one of
the basic rules of gun safety, right know your target
and what's beyond. We actually rephrase that a little bit
to say anything aligned with your target in terms of
anything between you and your target, your target and anything
past it. And nicely, there's a nice, big privacy mound

(28:26):
behind my house that kind of separates my neighborhood from
the adjoining neighborhood, and it's kind of a nice natural berm.
Now I don't use it as a shooting berm. I
can't say I've never thought about it for obvious reasons
in a residential neighborhood, but I would be prepared to
say the direction of my shot I knew was absolutely safe.

(28:48):
I was confident in my shot. I've got a nice
firearm with a nice optic, I had a light on it,
I had my target illuminated. I knew there was a
very nice high mound behind my target, which was the coyote.
And I knew I was already shooting from an elevated position,
either off my deck or because I'm taller than the coyote.
I knew shooting down with a burn behind me, it
was one hundred percent safe. I didn't endanger anyone. I

(29:11):
would be prepared to make that statement if and when
I gave a statement to police, which is a whole
another discussion. We'll leave that perhaps for another day. But
you have to be prepared to say that what I
did was not only necessary under the circumstances, but did
not endanger any other human being. And so it's a

(29:32):
great question by Buzz. But again, and I tease this issue,
which I'll go into here after the break. What if
I'm just getting ready to go on a walk. I'm
gonna walk my dog, or I'm going on a walk
with my wife or my granddaughter. Like a lot of
people listen to this show, I'm going to be carrying
my handgun. Should I think about any other methods of

(29:52):
self defense, realizing anytime you're out walking or bicycling or
jogging or whatever it might be, Yes, there's a chance
running into an aggressive animal. I think much less than
when I was a kid. When I was a kid,
nobody much kept control of their dogs. The neighborhood dogs
just ran around, and some are more aggressive than others.
I think depends on I'm sure the area you live in,

(30:13):
but I think for the most part, people are much
more responsible in training and keeping control of their pets.
But it's still a risk. We all hear about it.
A lot of people discuss all the time, and then
you have the whole separate discussion of a wild animal
like buzz just mentioned a coyote, And coyotes are all
the time, are around all over the place. I see them,

(30:34):
I started to say, all the time, just driving from
Scienceville to Carmel to go from my house to my office,
I see them downtown Carmel. So it's not like you
have to live much of the country to have a
concern with coyote. Is there anything else you could do?
Should you give that some thought before you go on
your bicycle rider for your job? That's all we'll get
into as well as go back to the phone lines

(30:56):
when we come back, says Guy Ralford on The Gun
Guy Show on ninety three.

Speaker 10 (30:59):
WIBs, your rights, your responsibilities, your guns.

Speaker 1 (31:11):
This is the Gun Guy, Guy Ralford on WYDC.

Speaker 4 (31:17):
And welcome back. I'm Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy
Show on ninety three. WYBC started talking a little bit
about the case of Oreo, the assault cat. It was
I don't need to laugh about Oreo no longer being
with us. By the way, I'm even though I'm not
particularly a cat lover, I'm certainly a pet lover and

(31:41):
uh and I don't make light of anyone losing a
pat domestic animal, and it's certainly an animal they're close to.
But what started this discussion is the story coming out
of Beach Grove of an aggressive cat allegedly attacking a
gentleman in Beach Grove and him acting quote unquote in

(32:01):
self defense in shooting and killing that cat. And by
the way, I'm a little surprised that Jonathan Moser, who's
the person who's now being prosecuted for intentionally killing a
domestic animals, not also being charged with criminal recklessness with
a deadly weapon. That is very common in cases where
somebody shoots at or shoots a domestic animal or or

(32:23):
anything else frankly in a residential area, and it's early
in the case you may see amended charges. But on
the issue of being able to protect yourself from aggressive animals,
I mean that comes up and where I cover this
exact topic in my gun law class, and I talk
about how self defense doesn't actually apply defending yourself against

(32:44):
an aggresive animal. People say, well, what do you mean,
I just have to consit there and watch it while
a dog choos my leg off or attacks my granddaughter
or my wife. And I said, well no, I said,
you know, do what you need to do. And again
that's where the doctrine of necessity is such an important point.
But in addition to that, I always recommend, and something

(33:05):
I do personally is carry less lethal means of self
defense when you're going on that bike, ride, or walk
or jog or whatever it might be. And what am
I talking about there? I am a big fan of
a striking weapon like a collapsebule baton. I keep one
in the map. Well, I don't know if everybody still

(33:25):
calls those map wells. I grew up calling them that
the pocket on the inside of your your driver's side
door and a matching pocket on the other side. But
at my driver's side door we always called that a map. Well.
But anyway, I have two things in that I have
a canister of OC spray pepper spray, which is very
very effective, And I have a collassful baton, and I

(33:51):
have a belly band holster, and separately I have a
something called a flister Enigma to carry a gun with.
But also I have the means to carry a classical
baton and some OC spray OC spray in my pocket.
Classical baton usually in a pocket in the holster when

(34:11):
I'm going on a walk or a bicycle ride. Doesn't
weigh much, not a problem having it in your pocket.
And let me tell you, OC spray is tough on dogs.
It is very very tough on dogs. And part of
the reason for that, and I've seen the after effects
of this, is it's bad enough in a human where

(34:34):
it gets in your eyes and you're breathing it. Now
you can't breathe, you can't see, your whole face is burning,
your nose is burning, your mouth burning, your lungs are
burning and you're salivating uncontrollably. It just shuts you down.
In An animal with a coat with fur osprays gets
in their coat around their eyes and it lingers, it stays.

(34:56):
I've seen dogs with their entire face shaved off, has
got hit with oc spray and they couldn't adequately get
it out of its coat. Now, I've also heard stories
of animals, and I think some breeds tend to predominate
when you hear these stories. The roci spray's not effective.

(35:18):
That's where a striking weamon makes a lot of sense,
Like a colass baton across the bridge of the nose
going to be effective many more times than not. So
I'm a big fan of having alternative means of self defense,
less lethal means of self defense and advocate, especially if
you're going out in a residential area. And with that,
I'm all pass the time for a breakcare. It's time
to get out at the top of the hour. We'll
be back in just a bit. This is Guy Ralford

(35:38):
on The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WIBC.

Speaker 1 (35:44):
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of
a free state, the right of the people to keep
in their arms shall not be infringed. This is the
second Amendment, and this is the gun.

Speaker 2 (35:58):
Guy boom boom boom bang bang bang bang boom boom
boom boom bang.

Speaker 1 (36:08):
Bang boo, Guy Ralford on ninety three WYPC.

Speaker 4 (36:13):
And welcome back for hour number two The Gun Guys
Show here on ninety three WIVC. Glad that you're here.
Been talking about a shooting in Beach Grove and actually
spend a lot more time on it than i'd bland.

Speaker 5 (36:27):
But it.

Speaker 4 (36:30):
Raised the question of whether you can claim self defense
when you're attacked by an animal, and the answer is no,
Are there other legal defenses you have? Yes, That's what
we covered in the first hour, and as well as
go into the phone lines taking some questions, which we're
going to go right back to here in a minute.
Separate question though, and this always comes up in my
gun law class, and people never liked the answer, which

(36:52):
is all right, well, separate question. Now it's not someone
attacking me or a loved one.

Speaker 5 (37:00):
And my need.

Speaker 4 (37:03):
To defend ourselves. What if it's a neighbor or some
other person who's trying to kill Miami. This comes up
all the time. I get this question almost every single
time I teach my gun law class. I have a
neighbor who hates my dog. He threatens my dog. He
says he's going to shoot my dog. If he's trying
to shoot my dog, can I shoot my neighbor? Question

(37:26):
I get all the time, and people don't ever like
the answer, and people get upset with me, and people
without actually knowing the law would I argue with me
that I can't possibly be right. But in Indiana, like
most states, you're domestic animals, and by the way, your
live stock follow in the same category. And people get

(37:48):
upset about this, and it's completely understandable. I don't blame them.
People say, wait a minute, you know my livestock as
as a farmer or a rancher, that's my livelihood. My
family doesn't eat and I don't put food on the table.
They're my livelihood and how I sustain my family. But

(38:10):
your animals, including your domestic animals and your livestock, and
Indiana just just considered your property. And in Indiana you
can use reasonable force to defend your property. I'm not
talking about your home. That's castle doctrine. That's a whole
different discussion. So take your home out of the discussion
for a moment. But your domestic animals and your livestock

(38:35):
are considered your personal property, like your wallet or your
jewelry or your car. Now that raises another question, because
you're occupied motor vehicles is included within the castle, doctor,
but we'll leave that aside. Somebody's just trying to steal
your car. Somebody's trying to shoot your dog. Somebody's trying

(38:56):
to to to break into your mailbox to steal your
mail because you've got Amazon packages in it or whatnot.
Can you shoot them? The answer is no. You can
use reasonable force to defend your property, but you cannot
use deadly forces. Again, I'm not talking about your home.

(39:17):
It's an important distinction. So people say, wait a minute,
my neighbor is actively taking shots at my dog. You
telling me I can't shoot my neighbor. The answer is no,
you cannot, and nobody likes hearing it, but they need
to hear it because what I don't want to get
is the call from you and from jail saying, well,

(39:41):
the neighbor took a shot at my dog, so I
shot him. He's dead. Now I'm being prosecuted for murder
or manslaughter, unfortunate circumstance all around. Do I empathize, of course,
As I've said more than once during this show, I'm
an animal lover and a dog owner myself, and I
feel strongly about it. But Indian law is clear on

(40:04):
the point. Right now, let's go to the phone lines.
I'll tell you what Keith has been on hold forever.
And Keith, thanks so much for your patience. Man, Welcome
to the Gun Guy Show.

Speaker 6 (40:14):
Hey, thanks for taking my call. Sure, with all the
violence who've had downtown, it seems like, maybe not all
of it, but a lot of it is by underage
people caring weapons. Well, my question is how does the
police officer be proactive about that? Can he just come
up to somebody who he thinks is under eighteen and

(40:36):
asked you bardy and explaining how that works.

Speaker 4 (40:41):
Yeah, it's something that I both posted about on social media.
And Keith, again, thanks for your patients and thanks for
your question. I posted about this and also discussed it
last Monday. I was filling in for Hammer on The
Hammer and Nigel Show, and I was lucky enough while
I was co hosting to have both Chief Bailey from

(41:03):
IMPD on as a guest on the Hammer Nudgel Show,
and we had Rick Snyder from the FOP Fraternal Order
or Police, who also was on it, and I asked
both of them about this and the way the law
works on this, and listen, there are Fourth Amendment protections
here to a little lesser degree. The Second Amendment it

(41:24):
certainly applies as well. But can the police just walk
up to somebody and ask them for ID for essentially
no purpose. No, that officer has to have a reasonable
suspicion that you're committing a crime or an ordnance violation
or an infraction. For instance, Indian has a failure to
identify law. If I get pulled over for speeding, Okay,

(41:47):
it was a valid stop because the officer saw me
doing seventy five and a fifty five, they walk up,
Can they ask for my ID? Yes? Do I have
to give it to them? Guess I don't have idaf
to give them my name? I believe it's name and address.
And there's a separate crime. It's called failure to identify

(42:07):
and that's just for that infraction of speeding. That's where
your failure to identify law comes in. And again, whenever
I mention this, and I listen, I get it, but
people come back and they want to argue with me
and say, oh yeah great. You know, now we're gonna
have police just randomly asking people for their papers, you know,

(42:27):
equating Nazi Germany out of the whole thing. Now, it
has to be based on a reasonable suspicion of committing
a crime, an ordnance violation or infraction. And what is
violation or curfew in downtown Indianapolis. It's an ordinance violation.
There's an ordinance in Indianapolis City kindt of council that

(42:48):
says after certain hours, you can't be downtown as a juvenile,
as a miner. Is someone under eighteen? If someone reasonably
appears to be under eighteen, can police officers detained them
and asked for ID. Yes, under the current state of
the law, they can. That's not a Fourth Amendment violation
because they have that reasonable suspicion of that ordinance violation

(43:10):
and as part of that they can ask for ID
and failure to provide ID is a separate is a
separate actual misdemeanor if they then are established to be
a juvenile in violation of the curfew. And I asked
Chief Bailey this directly, I said, is certainly my belief

(43:34):
that the law under the Fourth Amendment allows that juvenile
to be searched prior to them being taken in, and
Chief Bailey referred to them as safe and secure locations.
I'm not sure exactly what locations are talking about. Didn't
sound like necessarily the juvenile detention facility, but maybe it is,
or maybe they had some other locations all primed and

(43:56):
ready to take juveniles that they picked up. And this
was over the last weekend when we had the WNBA
All Star Game and we had Black Expo in town
and the police force in downtown Indy. I'll tell you what.
I went out walking around. I was downtown for another
two three hours after my show, and the police presence
in downtown Indy was like nothing I've ever seen. I've

(44:17):
been down here for the Super Bowl, I've been down
here for NCAA Championships multiple times. I've been down here
for a lot of big events, and I've never seen
a police presence like I saw this past weekend. Just
a week ago today, after my show, I went down
saw my friends at burn Cigar bar Uh and was
walking around the circle in between here and two three

(44:38):
blocks south of Meridian Street. I've never seen a police
presence like that, But I asked Chief Bailey because he said,
they have these secure and safe in secure locations he
called them they were going to take juveniles to after
you know, if they're in violation of the curfew. And
I said, when you take them to that safe in
secure location, do you search them first? He said absolutely,
My officers are never going to put someone in their

(44:59):
police are without having searched them. I said, okay, And
if they find a weapon of firearm on that juvenile
and you're under eighteen, you cannot carry a handgun or
otherwise possess a firearm. Outside certain exceptions. You can take
a class, you can be supervised by a parent, you
can be at an established shooting range. There are all

(45:20):
kinds of exceptions. But running around by yourself downtown or
with your buddies, you can't carry a firearm as a juvenile.
It's illegal. It's a separate it's a crime, and that's
not infraction. That's a crime. So I said, then if
you then are able to legally search them having been
stopped for the infraction, or excuse me, the ordinance violation

(45:42):
of a curfew violation, and you search them and find
a firearm. Isn't that a separate crime. Yes? Won't you
then arrest them for that crime. Yes, and that'll be
turned over to the Mary County Prosecutor's office for the
prosecution of that crime. Now, though in all likelihood go
through the juvenile justice system, you've all heard they go

(46:03):
to JUVI quote unquote, and maybe they don't fear JIV.
That's a whole nother discussion. But in the meantime, you've
taken that kid and that gun off the streets of
downtown Indianapolis. And listen, nobody cares about constitutional rights more
than I do. I've got a big chuck of the
Constitution tattooed on my right arm. I defend constitutional rights

(46:24):
for a living. I don't take those rights lightly. And
I'm not advocating for walking around randomly throwing people up
against the wall and searching them and detaining them absent
the legal standard of reasonable suspicion of the commission of
a crime, an ordinance violation, or an infraction. That's the
current standard. And do I think that could and if enforced,

(46:49):
will result in kids who were violating curfew more Importantly,
kids were illegally armed and downtown with the intent to
commit violent crimes. Does have the potential to get them
off the streets. Yes. Now, separate question that I asked
Chief Bailey, and then Rick Snyder from FOP brought this

(47:09):
up immediately when we talked to him afterward because he
was listening to Nigel and My interview of Chief Bailey.
I said, listen, the police presence was like nothing I've
ever seen in downtown Indianapolis last weekend. And he said,
oh my, yes, we canceled leave, we canceled time off,

(47:29):
and we had a presence that was intended to be
extreme in downtown Indianapolis. That wasn't his word, I'm paraphrasing.
And I said, okay, I said, is that sustainable? Is
that going to be a typical September Saturday night in
downtown Indianapolis? And Chief said, sustainable is exactly the issue.

(47:54):
And the answer to your question is no, it's not sustainable.
We can't have that kind of presence. We simply don't
have the resources and a man power for that kind
of presence. And then Rick Snyder sees on exactly that
issue that goes to by the way, the fact that
IMPD is and don't quote me on the number, I
believe I've heard Rick Nider say somewhere around four hundred
officers short on where they need to be from a

(48:16):
staffing perspective. And they have the budget, they have the spots.
They're having trouble filling them, is my understanding. But it's
not sustainable, and so will we see that as a resource?
Well do well we see more of these violent, armed
juveniles run around downtown Indy creating havoc and engaged in

(48:39):
more shootings after there's not that overwhelming police presence that
we saw last weekend. I certainly hope not if we
do enforcement of the curfew law curfew Ordinance more accurately said,
is certainly a weapon and a legitimate constitutional weapon the
police have. And that's exactly what we heard from Chief

(49:00):
Bailey and Rick Snyder as well last weekend. So that
was a long answer to Key's question. And we've gone
past the quarter hours time for a break. We'll go
back to the phone lines when we come back. Mike
has called, Anthony's called, and we'll take other calls as well.
Three one seven two three nine ninety three ninety three
three one seven, ninety three, ninety three. This is Guy
Ralford on The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WIBC.

Speaker 1 (49:32):
Well, he got a gun Guy, Guy Ralford on ninety
three WYBC.

Speaker 4 (49:39):
And welcome back. I'm Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy
Show on ninety three WIBC. Tell you, Well, let's go
back to the phone lines. Mike's been on hold for
quite a while. Mike, Well, thanks for your patients as well. Man,
Welcome to the Gun Guy Show.

Speaker 11 (49:51):
Hey guy, I have a Fourth Amendment question direct. Well,
you're relating to the second. If I'm driving in my
car and I get pulled over, if I have my
firearm walked and they walked compartment within my car, and
I tell the officer I'm not trying to be sneaky
or anything like that, can he get into my walcked compartment,

(50:16):
glove compartment or whatever without a warrant? And can he
use the reason I guess officers safety in order to
do that.

Speaker 4 (50:27):
It's a great question, Mike, and there was a little
bit of uncertainty about that until a case came down
I believe it was twenty ten called Melvin Washington v.
State in Indiana. You can just google this and read
the discussion from the Indiana Court of Appeals. But it's
Melvin Washington v. State and in that case decided by

(50:49):
the Indiana Court of Appeals, I think has changed the
way Indiana police officers are trained in the way they
approach firearms and vehicles. As well as the fact that
that firearms and vehicles are just so much more common
than they were even fifteen, twenty, thirty, forty years ago,
officers have had to be better trained in the law.

(51:12):
And what happened in the Melvin Washington case, and this
bears directly on your question, is that Melvin got pulled
over for something pretty minor, like a headlight being out
or something, and he had his license to carry, and
obviously this is before constitutional carry, but he volunteered to
the officer that he had his license to carry and

(51:33):
had a handgun in the car, and in this case,
it was under his seat, and he told the officer that,
and he produced his license to carry, and the officer said, well,
I'm going to have to take possession of that gun
from my safety and listen, I've heard a lot of
stories from a lot of people that have called my

(51:54):
office or sent me emails over the years, and that's
exactly the story I hear on the state police. I
think for a generation, I think they were trained to
do this. If they weren't trained to do this, then
it certainly became sop just in communication among the officers,

(52:15):
because I can't profess personal knowledge it's exactly how they
were trained. But I heard it all the time. State
police officer, I'm gonna to take possession of that firearm
from my safety. In this case, Melvin clearly said I
don't consent to that. When the officer said, well, I
don't need your consent, I can search the vehicle and
I can retrieve that firearm, take possession of that firearm
for officer safety, for my safety during the stop, and

(52:38):
that's what he did. He pulled Melvin out of the
car and I believe parked him on the curb or
back in his car, and then searched the vehicle and
found the gun, but also in the process, under the
same seat, found drugs. And the question became, was that
search of Melvin's vehicle constitutional unto the Fourth Amendment and

(53:00):
the standard the legal standard that applies here, and it's
very similar to what we were just talking about as
far as a detention on the streets. But in order
for an officer to search the area under the control
of the driver and the driver as part of a
traffic stop, the officer has to have a reasonable articulable suspicion.

(53:24):
That means they can articulate the basis for a reasonable
suspicion that that person is either a danger to the
officer or engaged in criminal activity. And that means criminal activity,
not in fraction or you know, something like your headlight
being out or speeding, it's actual criminal activity. So if

(53:45):
you roll the window down at a big old cloud
of marijuana, smoke rolls out, Okay, Now that officer has
that reasonable suspicion. You know, you pull over and there's
a there's a bag of cash with an exploded dipack
all over the back seat. Okay, now there's that reasonable
suspicion of criminal activity. But there has to be a

(54:07):
reasonable suspicion that either the person's a danger to the
officer or engaged in criminal activity. And here, yes, Melvin
had drugs in the car, but the officer didn't know
that and had no basis for a suspicion of that.
So what they relied upon, what the Attorney General's office
in the appeal relied upon was well, there's a gun
in the car. So as long as there's a gun

(54:28):
in the car, then officer has a reasonable suspicion that
the person is a danger to the officer simply because
of the gun. And that was the argument that police
officers made, for prosecutors made, or the state made in
appeals for the legitimacy of a search. When there's a
gun in the car, or someone reveals, either voluntarily or

(54:50):
an answer to a question, there's a gun in the car, well,
now there's a reasonable suspicion the person's a danger simply
because they have a gun. And the Court of Appeals
in the Melvin Washington case rejected that and said, no,
you know what, the logic really was, honest, law abiding,

(55:10):
non dangerous people carry guns too, and the mere possession
of a firearm alone doesn't establish any basis of danger,
a reasonable suspicion of danger. That a lot of people
who are no danger to an officer whatsoever can have
a gun in the car. And this is particularly true

(55:34):
or a person volunteers that there's a gun in the
car and produces a valid license to carry handgun, and this,
by the way, can be an advantage. I always say,
you know, I fought for ten years to get constitutional
carry passed, and the shouldn't have taken that damn long.
But I'm really proud of the effort that I and
a whole lot of other people put in on that,

(55:57):
including the legislators Bence Mass and Jim Lucas and Jerry Torr,
and many others, Aaron Freeman, It's a long list, Peggy Mayfield,
there's a bunch and but a lot of folks, the
people at the Indiana State Rifle and Pistol Association, and

(56:22):
I'm very proud of the members of the two Way
Project that I founded in twenty twenty. We showed up
and we got it done. Shouldn't taken that long. But
even with constitutional carry having been passed, ILL always make
the point there's still a lot of good reasons to
have a license. The state shouldn't require you to have
one in order to exercise a constitutional right, but you,
of your own volition may wisely choose to have one

(56:44):
for a whole number of reasons that I also cover
in my Gunlall class, by the way, but one of
them is during a traffic stop being able to immediately
produce that license if you choose to tells that officer
you've passed the background check necessary to get that license,
which on its face establishes that your ownership of a

(57:08):
firearm or possession of a firearm that's in that car
is legal and no danger to that officer. And that's
exactly what the Court of Appeal said to the Melvin
Washington case. Is someone who has a license to carry
and volunteers the license to carry and voluntarily indicates to
that officer there's a gun in the car, that creates
no basis for a reasonable suspicion of danger to that officer.

(57:30):
So the search of Melvin's car was illegal and a
violation of the Fourth Amendment. That's why Mike was totally
smart to phrase his question that way, I have a
Fourth Amendment. Quite that's exactly the question. And so officers now,
I think are much better trained all across the state

(57:52):
to not demand taking possession of firearms. And by the way,
what if an officer doesn't know the law or knows
the law and doesn't care, let me say, well, officer,
I have a licensed to carry, or you have really
no reason to think I'm any sort of danger your officer,
My hands are at ten and two. I told you
about the gun. Oh I'm gonna to take possession of

(58:15):
that gun. First of all, you can always consent to
any violation of your constitutional rights, whether that's Second Amendment
or Fourth Amendment or any other And officers, and I've
talked to a lot officer. I have a lot of
friends who are officers, and I always, I always give
them some grief over this point because I've seen officers
do this way too many times over the years. Officers
use the term i'm going to need to as a way,

(58:39):
I think, to not so honestly be able to say
that you consented to whatever it is they tell you
they're going to need to do. In other words, an
officer says I'm going to need to search your car,
and you say okay, not because you think your permission
is being requested, but because they just told you that's

(59:01):
what they're gonna do. And to the extent you say, oh,
hell no, you're not. Now you're resisting. The next thing
you know, you're getting taste or handcuffed or arrested for resisting.
So I'm gonna need to be careful of all I'm
going to need to I'm going to need to search
your car. I'm gonna need to take possession of that gun. Sir,

(59:22):
if you're acting asking my consent, or ma'am, if you're
asking my consent, the answer is no, I don't consent
to that. I don't need your consent. I'm gonna take
possession of that gun anyway, Sir. You might want to
talk to a supervisor about that. I don't believe that's
a lawful order. Now, is that an argument you're going

(59:42):
to win on the side of the road. No, No,
and hell no. And could you get arrested or taste
or handcuffed or some combination of all the above. If
you just say, oh, hell no, that's a violation of
my constitutional rights. You're not doing what you say you're
going to do. No, how, no way. Yes, could you

(01:00:04):
get a prosecutor for resisting? Yes? Would that be lawful?
In my mind? Absolutely not. But that's not an argument.
You went on the side of the road. So I
would ask the officer to please reconsider and perhaps consider
calling a supervisor, because I don't believe that's a lawful
order and I do not consent. Well, I don't need
your consent. That's what I'm gonna do. Get out of

(01:00:24):
the car. You have to sit in my car. Step
out of the vehicle. I'm taking control of the gun
that you just told me is on the holster on
your hip or whatever it is. By the way, what
if they just say, hand me the gun. Do I
want to be handling a loaded gun on the side
of the road with a police officer outside my car. No,
I don't want to have a gun in my hand
when the next police officer pulls up, but it's in

(01:00:48):
a holster on my hip. Well, unholster and hand me
that gun, sir. I'd really prefer not to handle the
gun here on the side of the road. I don't
consent to you seizing my gun from me. I believe
this is unconstitutional, but I would request man, I please
get out of the vehicle and you can take the
gun out of my holster. I don't want to handle
it here on the side of the road. Hell no,
do what I'm telling you to do. Tough spot. I

(01:01:12):
don't want to handle that gun on side of the road.
Say well, sir, May I clear it before I hand
it to you? For safety sake? I don't know if
that officer knows how to clear my gun or not
here or she may be an expert in handling their
glock seventeen, may not have any idea how to clear
my twenty eleven or six two two nine. They may hold.

(01:01:34):
They may be the armorer for their department. They may
be the head of the swat team and teach firearms
marksmanship and safety to every other officer on the force.
I don't know, but I would ask if I could
clear it. Not an optimal situation either. I don't want
to be handling a damn gun in the car with
officers around, but if that's a position they put you in.
But what I would document throughout the process while not

(01:01:54):
saying hell no at any point because that's not going
to end well on the side of the road saying
I don't consent to this or or ma'am, but I'm
going to do what you tell me to do. At
the end of the day, I believe what you're doing
is unconstitutional and I'm reserving my rights. Now do I
want to go into some big lecture on my rights
on the side of the road. Now, it's not going
to get you anywhere, and probably just piss them off.

(01:02:17):
But that's the that's the that's the position that poorly
trained officers put you in if they're demanding to do something. Now,
what if there's some reasonable suspicion that you're a danger
to the officer, And they can talk about things like, well,
you're sweating when it's forty degrees outside, and or you
wouldn't show your hands, or you know the infamous furtive gestures. Furtive?

(01:02:39):
What's furtive?

Speaker 5 (01:02:39):
Me?

Speaker 4 (01:02:39):
That means something indicating deception or guilt. What's a furtive
facial expressions or furtive gestures? The officer can't just say that,
he has to describe them, but it can put They
can come up with some argument for why, separate from
you simply having a gun, you constituted a danger to
that officer. That's all things. Those are all things that

(01:03:00):
can be tested in court. So that's a long damn
answer to a really good question we got. But from
the gentleman I believe was Keith, I'm way past the
bottom of the air. We got to take a quick
break here for news and to pay the bills. We'll
be back for what's probably gonna be a pretty short
segment here in just a bit, and we'll get to
the other folks who are still on the phone line

(01:03:22):
when we come back. By the way, I think that
was in fact Mike who had that awesome question. I'll
go back to the phone lines when we come back.
This is Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy Show on
ninety three WIBC.

Speaker 1 (01:03:37):
He's a Second Amendment attorney, he's an NRA certified firearms instructor.
He's the Gun Guy Guy Ralford on three WYPCY.

Speaker 4 (01:03:49):
Welcome back. I'm Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy Show
on ninety three WIBC. I've kind of screwed up our
timing here a little bit of a way long in
that last segment, but I'll tell you what. Anthony's also
been on hold forever. Let's go back to the phone
lines Anthony again. Thanks for your patience too, man. Welcome
to the Gun Guy Show.

Speaker 5 (01:04:05):
Yeah, good evening, guy. Yes, your your Twitter posting on
Oreo the cat certainly attracted some attention. Uh, some of
it not necessarily desirable. Yeah, but you know, I've actually
been attacked by some very large dogs before, most notably

(01:04:25):
Wimerners can be rather aggressive, and uh I managed to
handle managed to handle. One of them got got him
off of my ankle, but you know, I had torn
it open, and the dog owner was just absolutely livid
that he was going to have to have that dog
caged up to make sure it didn't have didn't have rabies.

(01:04:46):
He was He was absolutely livid with me anyway, he
threatened me as a matter of fact on that. But
I've also had had dog. Uh some wimerners in her
neighbor had fortunately no longer a neighbor kept on getting loose.
The kids lot them moose. She'd let them moose, and
they actually attacked the cocker spaniel that I had at

(01:05:08):
the time and started ripping the cocker spaniel apart. And
it took me with a tui for to finally get
them away. And the cop when he showed up, said
what on earth did you try to do? Try intervening
with those dogs, And it was like, well, I wasn't
gonna let them. I wan't gonna let him kill my
cocker spaniel. And he said you were crazy, but basically

(01:05:29):
gave her warning if they ever got loose again. They
were I'm bounding them. They were really vicious, but you know,
it's then I've been out in the county roads cycling
on a road bike, you know where you're moving a
pasteline with other cyclists at twenty to twenty five miles
an hour. Carrying a firearm while doing that is not
really feasible. So I do second the motion on carrying

(01:05:53):
pepper spray, which some of us started doing. And we
would encounter some very aggressive dogs out in the corn
and bean seals out now in the middle of you know,
the corns, corn and bean fialds, And every time you
call the sheriff, they go, oh, they're not our dogs.
We don't own any dogs. They're not our dogs. And
you see them come right around from where their barn
is every single time you rode by. So what we

(01:06:15):
found out was that the fever spray or whatever it
was it you call it, yeah, and you need one
that can give you a stream, not just a big
wide spray you want to give us.

Speaker 4 (01:06:26):
Yeah, yeah, you raised a good point about oc spray,
which I call it. And I have some, uh that
I have little pocket ones that are called pom pom,
which I always laughably say stands for pocket full of misery.
And those just can sit right there in your front

(01:06:47):
pocket or your jeans or shorts or whatever it might be.
And then I have a larger canister for the map
level of my car from a company called Fox. And
one thing I really like about each of those is
they come out in a in a stream that projects
some good distance. I mean, I'm talking, you know, fifteen
feet or so that comes out in a steady stream,
and that's exactly what you want one so you can

(01:07:09):
aim it and so you're not just getting a light
you know, light particles floating around in the air. You
can aim it in some concentration. And by the way,
you know, if you know how to do this, I've
taken some courses in the use of ice oc spray.
You do it, it's called a Z pattern. You go
right above the eyes here I'm talking mainly about a human,

(01:07:30):
but I don't know why it would be different on
a dog above the eyes. So it drips down into
the eyes, then down across the eyes on the down
slash of the Z, and then right over across right
across their nose essentially in that Z pattern, So across
the top of the eyes, down across their eyes and
lower and then back across their nose to right below

(01:07:53):
their nose. Now they're breathing it through their nose. They've
got it in their eyes. They can't see, we can't breathe.
They're salivating and tearing dramatically, and that's going to incapacitate
most folks. I'll tell you what. Let's go ahead and
take a break here. We'll be back and i'll tell
you what Mike's been on hold too. We will make
some time and get to Mike when we come back.

(01:08:15):
Let's take our last break here on The Gun Guy
Show on ninety three WIBC.

Speaker 3 (01:08:24):
Second to none on this second amendment.

Speaker 1 (01:08:26):
This is the Gun Guy with Guy Ralford on ninety
three WYBC.

Speaker 4 (01:08:32):
And welcome back. I'm Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy
Show on ninety three WIBC. A little bit of a
short segment here, but i'll tell you what we've had.
Also Mike on the phone for quite some time. Mike,
thank you as well for your patience. And you got
a question for.

Speaker 7 (01:08:50):
Us, Hi do Thanks thanks for taking my call. Sure,
this is probably an unusual question. I've been thinking wanting
to buy a pistol or something for home defense for many,
many years, but I just can't seem to bring myself
out to buy a nine milimeter.

Speaker 8 (01:09:09):
I think you know.

Speaker 7 (01:09:10):
My thought is I'd like to stop an intruder, make
an intruder go away, But you know, the thought of
killing an intruder, I don't know that bothers me. So
I guess my question is, can a twenty two or
something a little less than a nine.

Speaker 8 (01:09:28):
Milimeter be used for home defense? Would you recommend it?
And you know what kind of gun and what kind
of ammunition would make that effective?

Speaker 4 (01:09:38):
Yeah, Mike, It's really not an unusual question at all.
I get something similar all the time, and even more
so when I was teaching my actual shooting classes a
lot more often. Can I twenty two be an effective
home defense firearm? Well, listen, I mean the first rule
of of home defense with a firearm is to have

(01:10:01):
a firearm. And there are people who have trouble firing
or otherwise operating larger caliber firearms because of weight or
recoil or whatever other whatever other issues, who are certainly
more comfortable shooting at twenty two. And at the same time,

(01:10:21):
would I recommend it. No, I wouldn't recommend it, only
because what you want is something that's effective to stop
the threat. And listen, twenty two's. I've seen many different
articles saying that twenty twos are actually responsible for killing
more people than any other single caliber in the US.

(01:10:42):
I don't know if that's true or not. You know,
there's a line from My Blue Heaven with Steve Martin
where he talks about, oh yeah, you know, the mob
uses them for assassinations. And I won't quote it. Maybe
people may find it a little off color, but essentially
there's not much dry cleaning involved, was the quote from
Steve mart In. A very good movie, by the way.

(01:11:03):
But you want to stop the threat, and there are
too many reported examples of people being shot with twenty
two's a lot multiple times and still continuing to do
bad things for some period of time. And I understand
you're reluctance to taking human life. Listen, I consider myself
a Christian. I don't want to take anybody's life. I

(01:11:23):
would pray I never have to do that. But if
somebody breaks in my home, it is time to stop
the threat. And I would not want I have to
rely on a twenty two to stop a threat, and
that's why I would not recommend it. But that bears
more discussion than time we have. But that's my answer
to a very understandable question. That's it for this week's
Gun Show, GUD and Guy Show. Hope you enjoyed it.

(01:11:44):
We hope you come back. This is Guy Ralford on
ninety three WIBC.