The Gun Guy - Full show - 8/2/25

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:01):
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.

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

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

Speaker 4 (00:30):
And good afternoon, and welcome to the Gun Guy Show
on ninety three WYBC. Thrilled to be here. It's beautiful day. Sorry,
how nice is it that it's cooled off a little bit.
I'll tell you what I'm going to enjoy tomorrow. I'm
going to get out after church and shoot some sporting class.
If you're up at Indiana Gun Club there midday or so,

(00:52):
may very well see you. Would love to run into you.
Great weekend to be busting some primers and exercising your
Second Amendment rights outdoors. The shooting that we saw this
past week and four people were killed, it's fair to
call it a mass shooting. We had a guy with

(01:14):
the history of mental problems, as mass shooters tend to have,
who drove all the way from Las Vegas to Manhattan
and New York City and he's a guy who believed
that he had traumatic brain injury from playing high school football.

(01:35):
And listen, I don't discount the possibility that that happened.
I mean, I played football from third grade through four
years of college, and I'd like to think that I
don't have any symptoms of a lot of times they
call CTE or traumatic brain injury to use a different term,

(02:00):
but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen to some other people,
depending on what contact you experienced and how many direct
blows to your head, any number of other things. And
my point in bringing this up is not to debate
football or the safety of football, or whether football players
suffer traumatic brain injuries or whether this particular individual did.

(02:21):
But that was the basis for his being upset, apparently
with the NFL, and so he reports. Now the reports
have changed on where he got his rifle. He had
an AR fifteen, and a lot of us have seen
the picture of him holding the AR fifteen down by

(02:41):
his leg by the pistol grip as he's literally walking
down the street to walk into the building in Manhattan
which was the NFL headquarters, among other things. And he's
walking down the street and by the way, in that moment,
because this has of course fostered lots of calls for

(03:04):
gun control, in that moment, was he breaking New York law? Yeah? Absolutely,
New York has a so called assault weapon ban, New
York has public carry bans, any number of different laws
he's violating. So all those laws that New Yorkers say
keep them safe, and New York politicians say, keep them safe,
did absolutely nothing to prevent a guy from illegally walking

(03:27):
down the sidewalk with a rifle, walking into the building
there in Manhattan, shot an unarmed security guard, shot a
police officer, shot another employee, then went up to the
thirty third floor, reportedly shot another person who died, shot

(03:50):
an NFL employee apparently who was seriously injured but not killed.
So four killed one seriously injured, and then turned the
gun on himself as they ought so often do these
coward lead mass shooters and died as a consequence. And
you knew what was going to happen, especially after the
picture of him walking down the street with an ar

(04:12):
You knew you were going to hear all the usual
calls for gun control, and how many times over the
years after a mass shooting or otherwise. Have we seen
calls or heard calls for a so called assault weapon
ban after a shooting, And that tends to happen, by

(04:33):
the way, whether the mass shooting actually involved an AR
fifteen rifle or not, or anything that the politicians would
group together with the made up political term assault weapon.
But another term they love to use is military style
assault rifle. And there's a lot of public debate about

(04:55):
the use of that term. And of course we're hearing
that now. We're hearing this as a result of the
New York shooting, as we will anytime there's any kind
of a crime committed with an AR fifteen or similar
semi automatic platform with a detachable magazine, whether it's an
AK forty seven or an AR fifteen, or any number

(05:17):
of other similar firearms that bear that commonality of features,
which is semi automatic, detachable magazine in traditional rifle calibers.
But I wanted to take some time here on the show,
and and and as always we wanted to take your
questions and comments, So give us a call, join the discussion.
Three one seven two three nine ninety three ninety three

(05:41):
three one seven two three nine ninety three ninety three
because you know, a lot of folks on our side
of the gun control debate, when they hear that term
military style assault weapon get very very defensive, and they'll
and they'll they'll jump into the debate, and they'll say

(06:01):
things that are absolutely accurate in defending our right to
possess such firearms and the coverage the protection such firearms
receive under the Second Amendment, And they will correctly say
things like, well, you can't call it a military style
rifle because traditionally and historically, certainly in modern military terms,

(06:31):
military rifles are invariably select fire or automatic, and of
course different militaries across the world use a variety a
whole bunch of variety of different firearms, including semi automatic
and bold action rifles and semi automatic pistols and any
number of others. But in terms of what we think

(06:51):
of as the quote unquote military style assault rifle or
military style rifle to begin with, that's carried by the
world's infantries, for instance, we think of select fire or automatic.
So people say it's not military style and get very
defensive about that, And I've seen the NRA come out

(07:11):
with ads it's not a military style rifle. It's some
automatic and there's a dramatic difference. And that's true. There
is a very significant difference, no question, not debating that.
But I thought i'd take some time on the show
here tonight and push back a little bit on the
idea of how defensive we should be from a constitutional

(07:35):
perspective and a historical perspective on this issue of whether
United States private citizens, not members of the military, should
be and in fact are legally allowed to carry military
style rifles. And I'm sure there are people out there

(07:59):
getting nervous right now, and you may see this played
back at some point by anti gun people going, oh
my god, that nutcase on WYBC is advocating for civilians
to carry the weapons the military carries. Oh my gosh,
blood in the streets. But I want to look at

(08:20):
this issue from the perspective of the founders, look at
it from the perspective of the Supreme Court decisions we
have on the Second Amendment, and raise what I think
is a legitimate rhetorical question, which is exactly how defensive
we should be on this issue of oh, no, egads,

(08:40):
we have military style rifles in our homes in the
form of AR fifteens, now again, I don't conceive the
argument that these are the same as what modern militaries
carry because of the semi automatic versus select fire or
automatic distinction. I get that completely, and I've made that
point publicly too. But there's another perspective that I don't

(09:02):
think we should lose sight of, and a lot of
people have, and to me, it's an important one to
be true and intellectually honest to what the founders really
intended when they wrote the Second Amendment doesn't get enough
coverage and discussion. From my perspective, you're curious, you will

(09:26):
make a comment, join the discussion three one seven, two,
three nine three ninety three Right now at the quarter
of hour, we're taking a break, says Guy Ralford on
The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WIBC, second.

Speaker 3 (09:42):
To nine on this Second Amendment.

Speaker 1 (09:44):
This is the Gun Guy with Guy Ralford on ninety
three WYBC.

Speaker 4 (09:50):
And welcome back on Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy
Show on ninety three WIBC. So, after many of the
mass shootings that we've unfortunately seen in this country, where yes,
certainly some of them, in fact several have involved sei
automatic rifles what the left would call assault weapons, we

(10:10):
see these cries for a so called assault weapons ban,
and certainly a number of states have passed them. I
still expect the Supreme Court to take one of those
cases here fairly soon. In fact, we saw when they
turned down one of those cases. Just recently we saw
I believe it was Justice Kavanaugh that came out and said,
we really need to address this issue. I would expect

(10:32):
in the next term or so, so the Supreme Court
can rule on exactly the issue that I'm discussing tonight.
But where we see these calls for a so called
assaultpin ban, and when the politicians start waving their hands
around saying these weapons of war have no place in

(10:54):
private hands, and weapons of war have no place in
private homes or on city streets, and we as the
gun owning community, and certainly a lot of the firearm
ownership advocacy groups. So they're talking about NRA and the
Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Firearms Policy Coalition,

(11:14):
there's some really good ones out that really really good. FPC,
Firearms Policy Coalition, and Gun Owners of America have really
I think distinguished themselves well, especially in the courtroom here lately.
But a lot of times and I've seen ads, for instance,
from the NRA on this where they dispute the idea
that are commonly owned sei automatic rifles like my AR

(11:35):
fifteens and the like are in fact weapons of war
or military style rifles. And I get it because to
the extent that someone buys that argument, well, if they
are weapons of war, then only the military should have them.
And if you're not actively fighting a war on behalf
of the United States military, then those aren't the kind
of firearms that you need. Quote unquote, now whole nother discussion.

(11:59):
I may likely delve into this here yet on this show.
Don't talk to me about what I need, man whenever.
And there's there's so much of this gun control groups. Well,
you don't need that to go hunting. Well I'm not
talking about hunting. Well, you don't need that for self defense.
You don't need a thirty round magazine for something. How

(12:20):
do you know what I need. You're somebody who doesn't
think guns should even be owned by private citizens. Never
take any training, You have no idea what the hell
you're doing. You have not studied defensive shootings. He's making
some general, rash statement about what you think I need
when you know nothing about the subject matter and it's
something I've been studying and training in for my entire
adult life. I'll decide what I need. I could care

(12:44):
less what your opinion is on what I need. And frankly,
gun owners can get really bad on this point too.
You be on some gun related forum, people start saying,
you know, because they choose to not avail themselves of
opportunities they have in terms of equipment or cessories or
whatever it may be. You don't need to carry a
spaar magazine, You don't need a light on your carry pistol. Well,

(13:07):
tell me what I need. I'll decide what I need.
If you don't think you have a need for that,
God bless you man. It's a great country. You get
to make those choices. Oh why would you need a
spare magazine if you can't handle a threat with your
first X number of shots? Your first people say, I
carry a five shot revolver because if I can't stop

(13:28):
a threat in five shots, then I need to take
more training and I need to become a better shot. Well,
the best accuracy I've ever even read about in a
private defensive situation and the most incredible marksmanship under incredibly
trying circumstance I've ever seen, was performed by my friend

(13:49):
and client, Eli Dicken in the Greenwood Park Mall on
July seventeen, twenty twenty two. We just experienced a three
year anniversary of that, and Eli saved countless lives, as
I've talked about many times, and I was so incredibly
honored to be his attorney and now his friend. And
he started shooting from forty three yards away at a

(14:10):
guy with a rifle all the way across the opposite
end of the Greenwood Park Mall food court, and Eli
made eight out of ten shots, two out of four
from forty three yards and then six verse six as
that engagement continued. Most incredible Marx switch up I've ever seen,

(14:31):
and it still took ten shots. Some knucklehead. If you
want to carry five shot revolver, God bless you. I
don't care what you care. If you deem that sufficient
for your purposes, God bless you. I support you. I'll
train with you, and I will advocate for you to
do exactly what you care to do. I I'll support

(14:54):
you one thousand percent, But don't tell me if I
carry his spare of magazines, because I don't need that.
Just like the politic editions, the anti gun politicians shouldn't
be able to tell me how many rounds I need
to carry in my rifle, whether I need a semi
automatic rifle at all. I'll decide what I need. As

(15:14):
She've heard me say many times, and there's a lot
of people say out in public, it's not the bill
of needs, it's a bill of rights. The metaphor I've used,
and I've heard a lot of people repeat this. Whether
they got it from me or created it on their own,
I don't know, but I always say I talk about
Rosa Parks and people get all offended that middle aged

(15:36):
white guy kind of talk about Rosa Parks. A lot
of people get mad really quick. But Rosa Parks had
an absolute human right then at the time, protected by
the fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, to have
equal protection under the law and sit any work, damn place,
any damn place that she wanted to sit on that bus.

(16:01):
If she chose to sit in the front seat, by God,
she had an absolute human right to do so. It
was a right. Did she need to sit in the
front seat, the front seat in the back seat, are
going to the same place you're gonna get to your destination.
No price difference. No, she didn't need to sit in

(16:22):
the front seat. And who the hell cares. It's completely irrelevant.
It's not even worthy of discussion whether she needed to
exercise a basic human right bestowed by God but protected
by the Constitution. You don't talk about her need to

(16:42):
have her basic human rights protected. It was a right.
Once it's a right, the discussion of need disappears. That's
exactly my point on my basic human right to defend
myself and my family, not created by but protected by
the United States Constitution. So don't talk to me about
me about need. But I also I'm going to address

(17:04):
this issue of why we shouldn't, in my mind, be
too awfully defensive about these attacks that we get, oh,
the weapons of war and a military style assault weapon.
There's the political debate, and I get it, But then
there's the legal, constitutional, and historical debate, and that can

(17:29):
go in a little different direction, and certainly should. I mean,
look at the wording of the Second Amendment, a well
regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep in bare arms
shall not be infringed, and a Supreme Court ruled in
two thousand and eight in DC versus Heller that the preamble,

(17:50):
the opening phrase of the Second Amendment, a well regulated
militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
does not limit the right of the people. It was
somewhat of a discussion of the origin and the motivation
to protect individual rights, but was not a limitation on
that right. And for the first time, in a five

(18:11):
to four decision, the Supreme Court said, no, the Second
Amendment and the rights protected by the Second Amendment are
not contingent upon are not dependent upon service and a
military unit. And that's awesome and that's right, and thank
god that the constituency of the Court, by one vote,

(18:35):
reached the appropriate decision on that point, because otherwise, if
you're not in the National Guard right now, had that
decision gone a different way by one vote, second Amendment
would offer you no protection whatsoever. People don't understand how
close to constitutional catastrophe we really were. But the fact

(18:58):
that the opening phrase red militia being necessary to the
security of a free state does not create a limitation
on the right of the people to keep in bare arms,
which is the fundamental ruling that certainly goes beyond that,
but it's a fundamental ruling of Heller doesn't deprive ofs
of the context of the thinking of the founders when

(19:21):
they wrote those words. Because the discussion of a well
regulated militia, regulated meaning capable of its doing its job,
well armed, well equipped, well trained, well disciplined, like a
regulated clock keeps appropriate time. That's the use of the term.

(19:43):
Supreme Court ruled on that issue. That's in the Heller
decision as well. But why is the discussion of the
militia important and why is the militia necessary to the
security of a free state. Well, the militia just played
a huge part of winning the war for Independence against

(20:06):
King George the Second and England. And we saw the militia,
that is, citizen soldiers standing right next to the continental
Army as we fought the British, and there was a
lot of discussion that we did not want a standing army.
Having just fought a war against tyranny, we did not

(20:28):
want to see it replaced with another tyrannical government supported
by and enforced by a standing army. So the discussion
was well necessary to the security of a free state.
There's two important words, security and free. We need to

(20:48):
have citizen soldiers and we need them to be as
well regulated, being trained, and equipped as the army. That's
not the limit of the right protected by this Second Amendment,
but it's the context. And if that's the thinking of
the founders. If the Founders wanted me as a private

(21:12):
citizen to be as well armed and equipped as a
standing army, because they were specifically concerned about a tyrannical
government replacing the former tyrannical government and the role that
a standing army would play in that process, they wanted
me to be able to stand up to the army.

(21:34):
There's no historical debate about that. There are people that
can bastardize history and twist logic to such a degree
to come up with some silly argument, but there's no
rational debate on this point. So if the Founders wanted
me as a citizen soldier, as a private citizen, to
have the ability to stand up to a potentially trannical

(21:56):
government with arms equal to that government's army itself, where's
the argument to say that, oh, no, a private citizens
should not possess quote unquote weapons of war or in
modern language, military style assault weapons. I guarantee you the

(22:20):
Founders would look at that issue and say, well, of
course they could. That's the point. And when some idiot
like Joe Biden stands up and says, well, I don't
know why you need an AR fifteen. You don't need
that to go duck hunting. It's not about ducks, Joe.
Where are ducks or deer or whatever hunting game you

(22:46):
want to mention in this argument mentioned in the Second Amendment.
It's not there. It's not their ash.

Speaker 5 (22:52):
Now.

Speaker 4 (22:52):
Now, there was certainly a desire to protect the right
to keep in bare arms so that private citizens could
put could put food on the table, make no mistake,
and that is certainly part of the right. And that's
also discussed in the Heller decision. And we've since by
constitutional amendment right here in Indiana protected the right to

(23:12):
hunt and trap and fish right here in Indiana. And
it's a huge part of the right. I don't minimize that,
but that's not part of the historical context, and that's
not part of being necessary to the security of a
free state that the Founders wrote in a Second Amendment.
When Joe Biden says, well, there are limits on how

(23:33):
many rounds in your gun you can carry when when
you go hunting duck, but there are no limitations on
the rounds you can have in your self defense. Right,
Oh my god, we need to we do a better
job of defending ducks in this country then we do people.
And I would look at that, and after rubbing my
temples for a while, I'd say, Joe, because the ducks

(23:53):
don't shoot back. But that's where we are. But how defense,
if should we be on this term? And what did
the Supreme Court say? And really the first meaningful decision
on the Second Amendment in nineteen thirty nine in US
versus Miller. This is US versus Jack Miller. You want

(24:18):
to jump on wikipedia case involving the National Firearms Act
and a sold off shotgun brought against two guys, Frank
Layton and Jack Miller. And the issue in that case
was the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act, still on
the books today, that says you have to have registered

(24:40):
and at the time paid your two hundred dollars tax
stamp in order to have a short barreled rifle, short
barreled pistol, machine gun suppressor, and a couple other regulated
categories of firearms. What did the Supreme Court say in
US v. Miller. How does that bear on this discussion
of how defensive we should be on Oh no, don't

(25:01):
call my rifle a military style rifle. We'll get into
that when we come back join the discussion. Give us
a call. Three one seven, two three nine, ninety three,
ninety three, says Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy Show
on ninety three WIBC.

Speaker 2 (25:19):
The.

Speaker 1 (25:23):
Show about gun rights, gun safety, and responsible gun ownership.
This is the Gun Guy with Guy Ralford on ninety
three WYPC.

Speaker 4 (25:32):
Man, welcome back. I'm Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy
Show on ninety three WIBC. Before we get back into
the constitutional discussion, I was engaged in. We've had Lance
call in, I believe with a question. It kind of
bears on the issue of ownership of AR fifteen's and
the like. But Lance, which got for.

Speaker 6 (25:51):
Us, Well, I was just wondering, you know, I agree
with you completely with the idea that the Second Amendment
is we were just overthrow a tyrannical government with citizens
carrying firearms, as you should have said, so there should
be no reason to apologize for having weapons and citizens'
hands that are military style weapons. And I just mentioned

(26:11):
that I bought a forced reset trigger because of another
thing that shouldn't have been done. Two things in curasure
the lawyer you know the dates and stuff better than
I will. But the Firearms Act of nineteen thirty whatever
it is, after the bank robbers scared everybody, Bodny and
Clyde that oh my god, these bank rubbers have machine guns.
So they made it with the tax stamp and all that.
And then in nineteen I was at eighty when they

(26:32):
decided that any fully automatic weapon that was produced after
nineteen eighty couldn't be purchased without you know, without you know,
all were manufactured, so you have to have a tax stamp,
and those guns are gone crazy expensive.

Speaker 4 (26:43):
Yeap eighty six is the actual win that I went
into effect. But yeah, you're right.

Speaker 6 (26:49):
So anyway, like I said, I bought a force reset trigger,
and you know Trump, you know, got bust Donald Trump.
The ATF was confiscating them and as you know, forcing
the company that was selling them, yeah, Triggers. That's where
I bought my trigger from. And anyway, the you know,
now the at F under the Trump administration you know,

(27:11):
mailed all those back to people and told rare Breed
they could go ahead and manufacture them. Of course, what
I worry about is, you know what about when the
next administration comes. Am I going to get a call said, hey, Lance,
that trigger you have, we want it back?

Speaker 4 (27:25):
Yeah, especially since you know they're listening to the gun
Guy show and they've just made a no Lance to
come to come look you up.

Speaker 6 (27:30):
Now I didn't say my last name, Well I lost
it in a boating accident right after I got.

Speaker 4 (27:36):
Yeah, well, let me let me tell you where I
think we are on these And by the way, if
people don't understand or don't know, that term forced reset
trigger really fall in two categories. The original we're developed
and certainly primarily commercialized by a company called rare Breed Triggers.
That's what it sounds like. It's a it's a trigger

(27:57):
mechanism that is designed to go into some of your
my automatic rifle and it does what the name implies,
which is, as you pull the trigger, so you exert
force on the trigger, you pull that trigger back when
the gun goes off. The mechanism of the operation of
the bolt through the construction of the trigger and the
design of the trigger forces the trigger forward so as

(28:20):
to reset the trigger. So the trigger does have to
come forward to reset. You don't have to lessen your
pressure on the trigger, the pressure from your finger on
the trigger in order for the trigger to come forward again.
So if you just maintained a constant rear word pressure
on the trigger, you just press the trigger to the

(28:43):
rear word and maintain that pressure. The gun will continue
to shoot because the mechanism of the trigger is forced
to reset, and you don't need to pull release, pull release,
pull release at the same time. The trigger has to
go through a separate function for each shot, and that's huge.

(29:03):
It's very important. And by the way, there's another category
of these that result in exactly the same thing happening,
but a lot of people call them super safeties. I
have one of these on one of my guns, and
I think personally, in having looked at it, I like
the design better. It's a simpler design, but it does
the same thing. It just does it a slightly different

(29:24):
way through one particular bar connecting the trigger mechanism to
the action of the gun. And it's got kind of
a cool push through safety feature like a push button
type safety a little different than the lever safety you
typically see on an AR but operates the same way
and it does the same thing in the sense that

(29:44):
just a constant rear word pressure will make the gun
continue to shoot. However, the trigger has to reset, meaning
there's a separate function of the trigger for each shot,
and that's critically important under what Lance was referring to,
which is the National Firearms Act in nineteen thirty four,
as the definition of a machine gun is a gun
where one function of the trigger results in multiple shots. Well,

(30:09):
it's not one function.

Speaker 7 (30:10):
Of the trigger.

Speaker 4 (30:11):
If you just press it rear word, it's maybe one
action of your finger. Doesn't say one function of the finger,
says one function of the trigger. And in fact, in
the bump stock case, the Cargill versus US went up
to the US Supreme Court. Supreme Court has ruled on
this point. It was in the context of bump stocks,
but it was the same argument that the government then

(30:33):
was making, different than the government position now out of
the Trump administration. But they were saying, well, pull the
trigger once and the gun bounces off your shoulder, and
you hold your finger steady, and with one function of
your finger, you get multiple shots, that's a machine gun.
Supreme Court in the United States says, no, the trigger
still has to be pulled separately for each shot. It's
not one function of the trigger to get multiple shots. Therefore,

(30:56):
it's a semi automatic, not an automatic. Does not fall
within the National Firearms at nineteen.

Speaker 3 (31:04):
Thirty four, or.

Speaker 4 (31:07):
What we call the the Hughes Amendment to the firearm
Otors Protection Acts in nineteen eighty six that said, as
Lance mentioned, that you can't register a machine gun that
wasn't imported or manufactured before. I believe it's April of
nineteen eighty six, which made all bumpstocks illegal because they

(31:27):
all came along well after nineteen eighty six. So that's
all a done deal. So the settlement that the DOJ
announced just a few months ago between the DJ and
rare Breed triggers, because they had litigation going on on
this point. The DJ agreed with rare Breed and said,
you know what, You're right, it takes multiple functions to

(31:49):
the trigger to get multiple shots. This is not a
machine gun. And after Biden's ATF had seized a bunch
of triggers, the government agreed to send them back. There's
a little curveball in that whole situation, in that that
some states have since stepped in and banned force reset triggers.

(32:10):
Indiana is not one of those states, as you wouldn't
expect it to be, but several states attorney general attorney's
general filed a lawsuits saying, well, you can't ship those
back to residents in our state because they're illegal under
state law, and their dog, I think, went back and
they amended that settlement to say, okay, well we can't

(32:30):
ship them back into states where they're illegal understate law.
But so we have an agreement from the government that
a forced reset trigger is not a machine gun. We have, yes,
and that that can certainly change with the different administration,
as Lance says, but that doesn't changed. The Supreme Court's
ruling in the car Guild case on bump stocks, just
in my mind makes it very clear that a force
reset trigger is it does not make a gun a

(32:50):
machine gun, which is why I have a super safety
in one of my SBRs and it works great. It
took a little tweaking, took a little gunsmithing. In fact,
my friends had at Pinnacle Firearms and Carmel helped me
get it run and like it needed to run. But
it runs like a top now and it's a lot
of fun. I enjoy the hell out of it. And
it's absolutely legal, and I think it will continue to

(33:11):
be legal notwithstanding any changes in administration too. I've blonne
pass the three quarter an hour, so it's time to
take a break. We'll be right back and finish up
the first hour of The Gun Guy Show on ninety
three WIBC.

Speaker 1 (33:28):
Now you've got a gun Guy Guy L three on
ninety three WYBC.

Speaker 4 (33:34):
And welcome back. I'm Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy
Show on ninety three WIBC. I've got a bit of
a short segment here, but we're gonna get into a
nineteen thirty nine decision from the Indiana, excuse the Indiana,
the US Supreme Court on really at the time the
only meaningful gun control law on the books in nineteen
thirty nine. That's the National Firearms Act in nineteen thirty four,

(33:56):
and as I mentioned, you know, it severely limited the
ownership of items such as shortbaild rifle, shortbaild shotguns, machine guns, suppressors,
destructive devices, and what are called any other weapons. Won't
go into all those categories, but it included short bail shotguns.

Speaker 2 (34:12):
Well.

Speaker 4 (34:12):
A guy who was reported to be a somewhat infamous
bank robber at the time in the nineteen thirties, guy
named Jack Miller, and allegedly his fellow bank robber, guy
named Frank Layton, got arrested for transporting across state lines
and possession of a shortbel shotgun. And it goes up

(34:35):
to the Supreme Court, and it goes up under pretty
unusual circumstances because Miller and Layton didn't show up. In fact,
their lawyers didn't even show up. Nobody showed up to
argue the case for the Millers. And I'll go in
after the break to why that was. But in ruling
in favor of the NFA saying it was not unconstitutional,

(34:57):
they discussed specifically the justice is a Supreme Court discussed
whether a short bail shotgun or whether there was evidence
that a short bailed shotgun was useful for military service,
and the answer was no. Therefore they found it was
not protected by the Second Amendment. How does that bear
on this discussion. It's huge. We'll discuss that in the

(35:17):
second hour. Right now, we're taking a break. This guy
Ralford on The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WIBC.

Speaker 1 (35:24):
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.

Speaker 3 (35:34):
This it's the Second Amendment. And this is the Gun.

Speaker 2 (35:38):
Guy a boom boom boom boom bang bang bang bang
boom boom boom boom a.

Speaker 1 (35:47):
Bang bang bo Guy Ralford on ninety three WYBC.

Speaker 4 (35:53):
And welcome back for hour number two The Gun Guy
Show here in ninety three WIBC. So we're discussing repeted
calls for the banning of so called military style assault weapons.
We've seen renewed calls exactly along those lines after a
very vicious attack in Manhattan in the building that contains

(36:15):
the NFL headquarters there in New York, but several other
businesses as well. But we saw four people murdered, and
the guy took an ar he reportedly bought from his boss.
He worked at a casino in Las Vegas and bought
both a gun and a car from his boss, then
drove to Manhattan and murdered for four people. He didn't

(36:39):
know he was there to. Supposedly lodged some kind of
a protest against the NFL over traumatic brain injuries. He
believed playing high school football had caused him to incurb
CTE or a form of traumatic brain injury, and so
that's what he did, breaking many, many, many laws of

(37:00):
the State of New York in New York City in
the process. And of course those laws did absolutely nothing
to prevent that crime. But on the issue of as
I've been discussing in the first hour, how defensive should
we be as gun owners or as people who own
guns like the AR fifteen. I own more than one.
There are several different configurations. I have them in different calibers,

(37:24):
some full length barrels, some SBR, some suppress, some not,
some with longer range optics. That it's kind of a
lego kit for adults. And the optimization of them and
the accessorization of them as one of the many attractions

(37:45):
to the platform. But how defensive should we be on
this military business? Because again I was talking about the
nineteen thirty nine decision from the US Supreme Court us
Is versus Us versus Miller, and again an interesting run
up to that case, and that Miller and Layton, the
defendants in that case, were reported the time to be
well known bank robbers, and Miller had just turned state's

(38:09):
evidence and testified against a bunch of his fellow bank robbers.
And there's been speculation since then and some historical accounting
saying that the District court judge who actually ruled the
NFA as to short barrel shotguns was unconstitutional, was really
in favor of the gun control law and didn't think

(38:31):
people should own short barreled shotguns. But he knew that
Jack Miller, the defendant, primary defendant in the case, had
just turned state's evidence and was going to have to
go on the run and go into hiding immediately after
that case, so that in all likelihood he would not
even show up to the Supreme Court, and the government
would have a free run and its lawyers would be

(38:55):
able to argue unopposed in the US Supreme Court. And
that's exactly what happened. Miller didn't show up, his lawyers
can show up, and in fact, before the decision was
even handed down from the Supreme Court, Miller was found,
as I recall, out in the woods, tied to a tree,
having been murdered. But the decision was from the Supreme Court.

(39:17):
The decision was based on looking at the Second Amendment itself,
and and and the entire Second Amendment, including a well
regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.
I said, well, a weapon has to have some connection
to being useful in military service, or else it doesn't
fit within the context and the meaning of the Second

(39:45):
Amendment itself to be protected. And they said, there's no
evidence the short barreled shotguns were useful in military service.
Now again, there was no one there providing the argument
on behalf of Miller. And there are certainly shotguns used
all the way back in World War One and would

(40:05):
be again in World War II. We call trench guns,
which were extremely useful, especially in World War One, and
many of them, yes, were short brown shotguns. But no
one was there to provide that evidence, or make those arguments,
or make sure that the lower courts record was full
of that evidence to begin with. But the issue was

(40:29):
short broil shotguns being not useful for the military, aren't
protected by the Second Amendment? Doesn't it completely then turn
that ruling on its head, People will argue, or at
least it's ignoring that ruling from the Supreme Court. When
people argue, well, these are military style weapons, that is

(40:49):
the AR fifteen of the like or the AK forty seven.
It need to be taken out of civilian hands. They're
not protected by the Second Amendment, and they shouldn't be.
They should only be in the hands of our military.
How do you get there? And unfortunately, for all the
great things that the Heller decision did in two thousand
and eight, and again, had Heller not gone the way

(41:13):
it did on the foundational issues of do you have
to be in a militia do you have to be
in the National Guard today to be protected by the
Second Amendment at all? To have any rights protected by
the Second Amendment? That's where Heller really it was so critical.
I mean, it was night and day how bad things

(41:35):
and how opposite things would be today. I fell had
gone the other way. So we owe Justice Scalia a
huge debt of gratitude for that, as well as the
other justices that voted with him in a five to
four decision. But there's a quote in the Heller decision
that I've never been able to understand, because you know,
the Supreme Court justices obviously most of them here recently,

(41:58):
we certainly think gifts option or two to this but
most of these people are brilliant, brilliant people, and most
of them have really really, really smart people that they've
employed as law clerks that do research and help him
do the writing and make sure that what they're writing
is either consistent with prior Supreme Court precedent or there's

(42:20):
a logical argument for why they're changing that precedent. And
what nobody can explain to me, and what doesn't make
sense from the opinion itself, is why Justice Scalia chose
to include one particular phrase in the Heller decision because
he's talking about because and what Heller was about. The
context in terms of the firearms and discussion were handguns

(42:42):
DC had the District of Columbia had what was essentially
a complete ban on handguns because in order to possess
a firearm of any kind in DC, you had to
have a license from the District of Columbia, and they
didn't issue licenses on handguns, so you could know own
a handgun. It was a de facto band. Then they

(43:02):
also said whatever firearms you did have in your house
had to be disassembled or locked up and inaccessible. And
Supreme Court said, well as to handguns, which are commonly
used for lawful purposes in the US, and that was
the test they laid out commonly used for lawful purposes.

(43:24):
Since handguns certainly call follow within that category, handguns are protected.
But in saying that handguns are protected, Justice Scalia has
this line. He says, now we're not talking about other
longstanding prohibitions. And he talked about how there were certain

(43:45):
classifications of people like felons and the dangerously mentally ill
that can still be prohibited. And then he said and
that some weapons, including weapons most useful for military service.
He says, the M sixteen of the like may be banned. Now,

(44:07):
that wasn't necessary, that phrase, that sentence wasn't necessary to
the decision. So a lot of lawyers would call that
what we call dicta the icta. What's dicta dicta is
a commentary from a court in a controlling opinion that
isn't necessary to the outcome of the case. It's providing context,

(44:28):
it's providing background. But there's an argument to say it's
not really part of the decision itself. It's not part
of the precedent that that case sets that must be
followed by other courts. But a lot of lower courts
and in those circuit courts of appeal that have interpreted
Heller since the decision came down in two thousand and eight,
a lot of them have said, well, an AR fifteen

(44:52):
is like an M sixteen. Hell, it looks identical, right,
The only difference is one semi automatic one's autom but
it's still like an M sixteen. And so since the
Heller decision says we can ban those firearms most useful
for military service, we can ban the M sixteen and
the like. And if an AR fifteen is like an

(45:12):
M sixteen, then boom, we can ban them. And we've
seen the Seventh Circuit, which Indiana is part of. Again,
we don't have to worry about the Indiana General Assembly
ban banning AAR fifteen's any time soon, but if they did,
the Seventh Circuit would uphold it today unless the Supreme
Court turns that around. And we've seen several other circuits
come out and use this M sixteen like. But but

(45:34):
what will be perpetually confusing to me, it makes no
sense to me, is the Miller case is still authority,
it's still precedent, and they talk about a firearm is
not even protected by the Second Amendment if it's not
useful for a military service, like a short barreled shotgun
supposedly is not. And then just as school Leah, who

(45:59):
I have unlimited respect for, I wish he was still
with us. I hate that he tragically died while on
the Supreme Court, and the hell Are decision, for the
most part, is fabulous.

Speaker 6 (46:09):
But this.

Speaker 4 (46:11):
Firearms most useful for military service. The M sixteen them
the like turns Miller on its head. You can't get
there from here. And I think that's fundamentally wrong. And
maybe that's today why people feel the need to apologize
and back up and argue when people say, well, these

(46:34):
are military style weapons that ought to be banned out
to be out of civili en hands. Oh hell no.
The founders of this country and the Supreme Court understood
in nineteen thirty nine. These are exactly the kind of
weapons our founders wanted us to have, yes, because they're
necessary to the security of a free state. And I will,

(46:57):
I think, be intellectually honest and historically accurate in arguing
that I'm not too apologetic about what label you want
to put on my rifle. It's a rifle. The founders
of this great country wanted us to have and that
we're going to take a break. I'm gonna switch gears.
Go to the phone lines. If we've got anybody on there,
I think we have at least one caller on there.

(47:17):
Give us a call, Join the discussion. Three one seven
two three nine ninety three ninety three. That's three one
seven two three nine ninety three ninety three. This is
Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WYBC.

Speaker 3 (47:34):
Second to none on this second amendment.

Speaker 1 (47:36):
This is the Gun Guy with Guy Ralford on ninety
three WYBC.

Speaker 4 (47:42):
Hey, welcome back. I'm Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy
Show on ninety three WIBC. Tim, let's go to the
phone lines. We've had some people call in and Tim
is called Tim. Welcome to the Gun Guy Show. How
you doing good, Budd? Are you doing all right?

Speaker 8 (47:56):
Yep?

Speaker 7 (47:56):
Doing great.

Speaker 8 (47:57):
I'm got a couple questions.

Speaker 6 (47:58):
Where do you go shoot?

Speaker 8 (48:00):
Besides you said you were going to go shoot some
clay pigeons, where you're going to go shoot your AR fifteen?

Speaker 4 (48:05):
So well as a great question, I'll tell you what.
As far as indoor ranges around Indy and listen, I've
got a relationship with these people, So take this for
what it's worth because I've been teaching there for a
long time. But at Indie Arms, they've got my favorite
indoor range that I've ever shot at. It's really incredibly
well lit and very important for an indoor range.

Speaker 8 (48:27):
It's what about for distance?

Speaker 4 (48:29):
For distance, you know what. I've been looking at Indiana
Ordnance Innovations and they're out in Brookville or out in
that area, and they've got I think up to thirteen
hundred yards now it requires a membership. But then there's
bass and bucks up in Wabash. I've been up there
where you can get some distance, and then I've been

(48:49):
up to Long's No Young's long Shot, which is also
way up north. It's kind of like go to Fort
Wayne and turn left, but you can get out to
one thousand yards. I took my three hundred win back
up there and love shooting way long distance there out
to a thousand long I got.

Speaker 8 (49:07):
So yeah, well, well, and I just recently obtained a
Daniel defense by by six.

Speaker 4 (49:14):
I don't know, well, I mean five five six. It
depends what you're training for, right, I mean, if you've
just got a red dot like a lot of us,
do I mean I have different ars.

Speaker 8 (49:22):
No, I'm hunting.

Speaker 4 (49:24):
Okay, yeah, well you can still you can still get
zero out at twenty five yards, but no, I'd want
to find something longer than that. I believe Adderbury. Somebody
calling or message me on the YouTube feed and tell
me if this is wrong. I think you can still
get out to one hundred yards down at Adderbury and listen,

(49:45):
a lot of hunters are going to take shots obviously
longer than one hundred yards, but depending on what they're hunting,
of course. But it doesn't mean you can't get a
good zero and understand exactly what your trajectories are, assuming
you know about the ballistics of the rounds that you're shooting,
giving the rifle that you're using. Go back to the

(50:05):
phone lines and Zach is called Zach. Welcome to the
gun Guy Show.

Speaker 9 (50:10):
Hey guy, I hope you're having a good day so far.

Speaker 4 (50:12):
You too, brother, I appreciate it.

Speaker 9 (50:14):
Yeah, so I reload. It's a great hobby if anyone
who does, as you're curious about it and should totally
get into it. I just wanted your thoughts on Harry
handloaded self defense damndition, you know, and in my case a.

Speaker 4 (50:29):
Dim elevad or you know so, yeah, and I'm and
I'm sorry. I don't know if you were breaking up
a little bit, Zach, but I was having trouble understanding
you my thoughts on what exactly would you mind repeating that.

Speaker 9 (50:41):
I'm sorry, carrying handloaded.

Speaker 4 (50:45):
Oh, for defensive purposes and yes, sir, oh you know this,
Zach is such a good question. And I've had that
question many times, and a lot of people say, uh,
you know, you should only carry factory AMO. And then
there's kind of a favorite uh line on the internet
that you see where people say, oh, I only carry

(51:05):
what my local police department carries, uh in terms of
factory AMMO, but specifically, should you not carry your own
handloaded AMMO. Listen. The the only hesitancy I would have
at all about doing that is is just reliability. And
it sounds like you've been doing it a while and

(51:27):
I'm sure you know exactly what you're doing. And if
you're confident in the reliability of your AMMO, I mean,
you know, they're You've heard a lot of people say
uh that have been in real gunfights, which I have not,
But people will say there's there's no louder sound you'll
ever hear than a click when you were expecting a boom.

(51:48):
But hey, uh, if you're you know, you know what
your components do, You're using quality components. You know what
you're doing in the reloading process. That and that's if
that's not a concern to you. And you're also able
to use self defense style bullets. People certainly do a
handload and reload using jacketed hollow points, which I would

(52:08):
always recommend for defensive purposes. Hey, if you're comfortable in
those rounds, I don't know, and i'd defend self defense
cases for a living. I have never seen anywhere a
case where a legal justified shoot, that is, someone met
the prerequisite for self defense. In Indiana, it would be

(52:32):
out in public, you had a reasonable belief that the
use of deadly force was necessary to prevent serious bodily
injury to you or a third person, or the commission
of a forcible felony. I've never seen a case un
or whatever definition was being employed, even in other states
where a prosecutor was able to successfully argue, well, yeah,

(52:53):
this would have been the justified use of force and
self defense, but they used reloaded AMMO. And so it's
not what how does that change anything? I mean, if
if you're justified in using deadly force, then you can
use deadly force. And that means you can shoot them
with factory am O, you can shoot them with reloaded AMO,

(53:14):
you can shoot them with ball AMO, you can shoot
them with hollow points, or you can hit them over
the head of a bowling ball. Deadly force is deadly force.
And and I'll tell you and I don't engage in
a lot of internet debates on social media debates because
there are complete waste of time. But you know, there

(53:35):
are a lot of commentators out there, and Messada you
has written articles on this may even be in his book.
It's been a while since I've read it. Now I
want to say that it is is he even talks
about accessorizing your gun. Oh well, you know, if you
put a lighter trigger in your gun, well, then a
prosecutor is going to use that against you. Or if
you have a red dot or you know, whatever it

(54:00):
might be, then that's going to be used against you.
And listen. And I have a lot of respect from
massaut Iu and others. I've seen articles in organization that
I'm a member of and I respect us Concealed Carry
Association said similar things. You know you put a lighter trick.

Speaker 3 (54:18):
What's a hair trigger?

Speaker 4 (54:19):
You're you're putting a hair trigger in your gun? So
that that indicates intent? I see that all the time
out on social media. That indicates intent. Hold on intent.
If somebody kicks my door in in the middle of
the night and he comes in with his short barreled
shock then with a note in his back pocket that

(54:40):
said murdered guy and steal all guy's stuff, and I
put my handge at the middle of his chest and
pull the trigger three times? Did I intentionally, at that
point shoot him with deadly force? Is there a very
probable outcome that me shooting him in the chest would
cause his death? Of course it is. Did I intend

(55:03):
to do that? Yes? I intended to stop the threat.
I intended to prevent him from coming in and hurting
me and my family. I intended to prevent an unlawful
entry into my dwelling, which is a separate justification under
the self defense statute. Of course I intended it. I
pointed the gun at him and pulled the trigger. What
do you mean it has to do with intent? The

(55:24):
issue is not whether I intended it. If I'm justified,
I can intend it all day long. And I've had
I don't countless number of cases involving guns where somebody
pulled a trigger. I don't remember a prosecutor ever even
mentioning evidence, assuming the police either even gathered the evidence

(55:45):
of having measured the trigger pull and said, oh, well,
that's only got a three and a half pound trigger
in it, so it's an aftermarket trigger, where that gun
from the factory comes with five and a half. Well,
it's a lighter trigger. Therefore they must not be justified.
What the legal argument makes no sense to me. And

(56:07):
I tend to think that this is a way to
sell articles because it's a way for people to go ooh.
And there's this favorite phrase people use out there, the
aggressive liberal prosecutor or. You know a lot of times
people in other states say da, which, we don't have
district district attorneys in Indiana. We have prosecutors and deputy
prosecutors at least in every jurisdiction I've been in, which

(56:31):
is pretty much all of them. Well that you know,
the aggressive liberal prosecutor will use that to get well,
it doesn't change the law. I did have a deputy
prosecutor one time say to me, well, you know, we're
you know, and this is in a case it has
been charged and it was in my mind clearly self defense.
So we ended up establishing that and ended up getting

(56:53):
all the serious charges dismissed. But at one point I
have a deputy prosecutor said, well, if this goes to trial,
I just really don't think the jury's going to like
the fact that your guy used an AR fifteen, and
I the jury's really going to be swayed by that.

(57:13):
And at the time, this is a while ago, where
I had actually had a book of the US statutes
and actual book form hard copy, and I pulled it out.
I turned to the Indiana Self Defense Statute article where
section Indiana Code, section thirty five forty one DESH three

(57:34):
DISH two I talked about all the time here on
the show. And I handed him the Self Defense Code
and I said, please turn to the section in here
where it talks about a separate standard for the use
of really really deadly force. And he looked at me, like,
what are you talking about. I said, well, no, you're

(57:56):
saying my guy used an AR fifteen and that that
was somehow more gun than he should have used. So
there must be a different standard for the use of
really really deadly force. He could have used deadly force,
could have shot the guy with a with a handgun,
or I suppose the way a lot of people think,
you know, instead of a five to five to six round,

(58:17):
which is a medium caliber gun, and people talking about
a high velocity, a high powered rifle, it's not the
one caller talked about hunting with five five six, Well,
five five six isn't even legal to hunt most places.
And I'm not a hunter, and I'm not an expert
on the DNR regulations, but the reason five five six
isn't even legal in most places to hunt deer is

(58:40):
because it's not lethal enough and you can't humanely ethically
predict a clean kill. But the way a lot of
people think you could pick up your your three hundred
wind mag or your threeho eight or your thirty odd
six hunting rifle and shoot a bad guy with that,
well that's okay, that's a hunting rifle, but you're super

(59:01):
lethal deadly ar fifteen. Well that's too much gun, which
makes no sense from a bilistic standpoint. From a lethality standpoint,
it makes no sense at all. But I said, show
me the different standard it's required for the use of
really really deadly force. He said, well, there's no separate standard. Well, no,
there's not, is there. You either justified in using deadly
force or you're not. And if you are, the method

(59:26):
you use to employ deadly force makes no sense. Now,
I will say this about like Triggers were talking about modifications.
If you accidentally discharge your gun, you have a negligent
discharge and ND as we call them, and a lot
of us have stopped using the term altogether. I don't know,

(59:47):
fifteen plus years ago, I stopped using the term accidental discharge,
which actually is germane to a topic I'm going to
bring up earlier on the show if we have time
about the said P. Three twenty. But if you have
a negligent discharge, your gun goes off when you did
not intend for it to go off, when you had
your finger on the trigger but you didn't mean to
pull the trigger, and somebody gets hurt and you're charged

(01:00:15):
with a crime like criminal recklessness with a deadly weapon.
Does the fact that would the fact that you put
a lighter trigger in that gun that arguably led to
your negligent discharge when the gun went off when you
did not intend it to, because the trigger took two
pounds or three pounds less pressure for that gun to

(01:00:36):
go off than if you'd left it alone. Would that
modification come back to haunt you? Yes, yes it could,
Yes it could, but that's not what we're talking about here.
And when most people say, don't ever accessorize, or going
back to the caller's question, you know, if you load

(01:00:59):
to plus P pressures, which is higher velocity depending on
the particular ammunition, the particular projectiles you're using going to
be a bit more lethal or at least cause more
penetration or more expansion, again, all depending on what kind
of ammunition you're putting together. Could somebody say, well, you
loaded super lethal ammo with your plus P pressures or

(01:01:21):
plus P plus which is even higher with a hollow
point bullet. So you're some mercenary thinking, you know, ultra
violent person who loaded this ultra dangerous ammo. Could a
prosecutor make that argument? Sure, a prosecutor could make that argument.
Do I think it goes anywhere? No? Do I think

(01:01:41):
any competent lawyer, self defense lawyer, criminal defense attorney. Could
they say, ladies and gentlemen, the jury, assuming he even
gets that far, question is about whether deadly force is
justified here or not, and if it is, there's no
such thing as really really deadly force. It's all about
what was justified on the front end. So it's a

(01:02:04):
much longer answer to the question that we had just
it was just about AMO. But I think it's an
interesting question, and it's one that comes up a lot
in discussions and certainly something I've had as well. I'll
tell you what, We're past the bottom of the hour,
so it's definitely time to take a break. We'll come back.
We'll talk a little bit about the sig P three twenty.

(01:02:25):
I am not so proud anymore owner of two P
three twenties. I've taken one of them, I've carried one
a lot, and I've taken another one through multiple training courses.
They've been fabulous guns for me. What's going on with
those guns? What's the consensus on where that issue is
going from here? That is, will this gun discharge when

(01:02:47):
you do not pull the trigger? That's a big deal.
I've been very very reluctant to buy into the anti
SIG arguments on this point. Very very reluctant. But I
think I'm about there and I'll expla and why when
we come back. Also, go to the phone lines three
one seven two three nine ninety three ninety three three
one seven two three nine ninety three ninety three, give

(01:03:09):
us a call. Is this Guy Ralford on The Gun
Guy Show on ninety three WYBC.

Speaker 3 (01:03:19):
Second to none on this second amendment?

Speaker 1 (01:03:21):
This is the Gun Guy with Guy Ralford on ninety
three WYPC.

Speaker 4 (01:03:27):
Yeah, welcome back. This is Guy Ralford on The Gun
Guy Show on ninety three wibc's going back to the
phone lines, and Jerry has called in, I think with
a comment. Jerry, Welcome to the Gun Guy Show.

Speaker 7 (01:03:38):
Hello.

Speaker 5 (01:03:39):
I had a comment about assault weapons.

Speaker 9 (01:03:43):
Uh, you were talking about earlier.

Speaker 5 (01:03:46):
When I hear politicians say that we need to ban
assault weapons and they're talking about the AR fifteen. To me,
an assault weapon is an automatic weapon. I hope that
our military is sending our soldiers into battle with this

(01:04:07):
semi automatic AR fifteen.

Speaker 7 (01:04:09):
They're not.

Speaker 5 (01:04:11):
They're using an assault weapon.

Speaker 4 (01:04:13):
Yeah, No, you're You're right, Jerry, And I made that point.
And it's a valid distinction. But the discussion I had
earlier is that I don't think we should be too
apologetic about what we call them. And even if they're
described as so called military style rifles, I agree with you,
they're fundamentally different. An assault weapon is to me, a

(01:04:36):
politically made up term just trying to demonize the most
popular rifles in America. But I don't think we use
the gun owners and owners of ar fifteens and aks
and the like. I don't think we should be just
too defensive about that, given the origins of the Second Amendment,
which is what I went through earlier in the show.
So I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying, and I
think there's a huge distinction, and the Supreme Court and

(01:04:59):
the Cargo based on bump stocks specifically recognized the important
mechanical distinction between semi automatic and automatic, and that was
in the context of the NFA regulating machine guns. But
I agree with you, I just don't think that I
that I personally don't choose. I don't feel the need
to choose to be too defensive about that when I

(01:05:20):
think the founders wanted me to have equal weaponry to
the government military to begin with, And that was a
long discussion I had at the beginning of the show.
Let's go to Felix. Felix, welcome to the Gun Guy Show. Well, yes, sir,
which cut for us?

Speaker 10 (01:05:38):
Yeah, I can't defend myself. I can't buy a gun
because all the guns I looked at it in the arms.
For example, I can't pull the trigger. I'm eighty years old.
My finger is not strong enough to pull a trigger.
Is there a gun that's really easy to pull the trigger,
like a toy gun that I can defend myself with?

Speaker 4 (01:05:58):
Yeah, there are certainly guns with lighter trigger polls. I
mean that a standard self defense gun Felix is going
to have a trigger poll around five and a half
pounds or so. I mean, you want to stay away
from the big double action revolvers or double action semi
automatics because one pole a trigger has to both cock
the hammer and release the hammer, and that can be very,

(01:06:21):
very difficult and for a lot of people, especially that
have diminished hand strength. But you can also look at
modifications to lighten the trigger even after market, and I've
shot guns that had all the way down to three
pound triggers or so now there's a very important safety
consideration as part of that, and you have to balance

(01:06:44):
that and the rules of gun safety ought to be
adequate to protect us in this, which is we're not
going to point the gun at anything we're not willing
to shoot. We're going to keep our finger completely off
the trigger until we're on target and ready to engage,
those being the primary ones involved. But the lighter the
trigger is that more likely you are to have an
accidental discharge or negligent discharge of it, as I was

(01:07:05):
just describing, which you have to balance. But you can
certainly find guns with much lighter triggers, and you can
have aftermarket modifications made to lighten the trigger. Just where
we have to be really, really, really really careful about
following the rules of gun safety, particularly keeping anything and everything,
including our fingers away from the trigger until we're actually
on target ready to fire, especially when you've got a

(01:07:28):
very very light trigger, what some people will call a
hair trigger. Let's go one more phone call here before
we take a break and go to Jay. Jay, Welcome
to the Gun Guy Show.

Speaker 7 (01:07:41):
Hi got how you doing good?

Speaker 2 (01:07:42):
Jay?

Speaker 7 (01:07:42):
You're doing all right doing so pray. I just got
a quick question. I live in a rural address. I
live about three hundred yards off the road. This happens
a lot. I go through some phrase like and I
live up on a hill. But I see people at
twelve one o'clock to driving up my driveway stop maybe midway,

(01:08:02):
because I have two signs saying no trespassing. I've even
had him coming even closer than that. Would I get
in trouble if I just walked out there, if I
had a gun, I got multiple guns, But say like
an MPX or something.

Speaker 4 (01:08:15):
Yeah, I'll tell you the problem is. And I've defended,
in fact, I'm defending cases right along these lines right now, Jay,
where when you have the gun and the person can
see the gun, then if they call police and say
this guy was threatening me with a gun, then the

(01:08:36):
cops always going to ask him, well, did he point
the gun at you? And the history of police officers
asking anybody who's called and said, oh my god, this
crazy guy was threatening me with a gun. And the
history of the question did he pointed at you? I
would guess somewhere around ninety eight point five percent was
oh yeah, oh my god, he pointed it. Whether you
did or you didn't, that's just a natural, I think

(01:08:59):
human response and where people want to escalate or people
want to exaggerate what actually happened to put you in
a worse light. Now you potentially got criminal charges for
pointing a firearm because you're not justified in pointing your
gun at someone who's simply trespassing. And a lot of
people don't like hearing that, and they think I'm trying
to rationalize and justify the way the law exists on

(01:09:20):
that point.

Speaker 6 (01:09:21):
I'm not.

Speaker 4 (01:09:21):
I'm just telling you what the law already is. So
if it were me and somebody was there, I would
be prepared to defend myself and my family and my
home from within my home. I would not go out
and confront them. And if I did, I wouldn't have
a gun visible on me because the downsides are just
too great now. If they're really there for nefarious purposes,
they're there to break in. It's a home invasion. There's

(01:09:43):
six of them in there there arm or where would
you rather be? Would you rather be out in your
driveway standing there with you know, with a gun at
your side, or you know, in a holster on your hip,
or would you rather be in your house from a
defensible position with cover that'll stop a bullet, with a
phone available to call nine point one if things really
go south. You know, that's an obvious answer to me,

(01:10:05):
So I would not recommend going out and confronting them
with a gun. That's frustrating to people. A lot of
people think, well, hell, that's one of the reasons I
have guns, so I can keep potentially threatening people away
from my family and my home. But that's using a
gun to blove, for to intimidate, and that's what gets
us in trouble more often than not, as opposed to
you using it as a tool of last resort when

(01:10:26):
you're live for another innocent light life or your family's
safety is involved fundamentally different issues. So it's a little
more conservative than most people want to hear. Jay, But
that's what I've seen unfold and based on my experience,
that's my answer. Let's go ahead and take a break.
We'll come back for what's going to be a short
section to conclude this week's Gun Guys Show, but I'll

(01:10:48):
mention kind of where I am on the p three
twenty here in the closing segment. Thanks so much to
our callers. Will be right back this Guy Ralford on
The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WYBC.

Speaker 1 (01:11:01):
Now you've got a gun guy, Guy Ralford on ninety
three WYPC.

Speaker 4 (01:11:08):
And welcome back. We've only got about a minute, but
I'll go into more on this in later shows. But
on the issue with a SIG P three twenty, I've
been a number of reports from across the country and
now a couple of juries. I've ruled against SIG saying
that the P three twenty is capable of firing without
the trigger being polled. And I got to tell you
I own two three twenties. I've trained with both of them.

(01:11:30):
I set up one as a suppressor host with a
thread of barrel. I took the other one to last
time I went to gun site and it ran great.
And I've always trusted those guns. But the reports are
getting to two consistent and two numerals and I'm taking
mine out of commission. I'm not going to carry him anymore.
And I'll go into this on more in more detail

(01:11:54):
on future shows. Right now, that's it for this week.
We hope you enjoyed it, hope you come back. This
is Guy Ralford. I'm a Gun Guy show on a
free to pibacy