The Gun Guy - Full Show - 8/9/25

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.

Speaker 2 (00:11):
This is the Second Amendment, and this is the gun Guy.

Speaker 3 (00:16):
Boom boom boom boom bang bang bang bang boom boom, boom,
boom bang bang.

Speaker 2 (00:25):
Bom Guy Ralford on ninety three WYPC.

Speaker 4 (00:30):
And good afternoon, Welcome to the gun Guy Show here
on ninety three WYBC. We're thrilled that you're with us.
Got a lot to get into. Hope you're enjoying this
absolutely beautiful summer day out there, a little warm, but
not too warm to be enjoying some outside activities. Hope
you got out. I hope you got to bust some
primers and exercise your constitutional rights here over the weekend.
If not, you got a lot of weekend left, and
we hope you were able to do exactly that. I've

(00:52):
got some cool events coming up that I want to
share with people, and I'm excited about both of these
for very different reasons. But just coming up this Tuesday,
August twelfth. This is in Plainfield, but there's a what's
being described as a constitutional oath rally. But this is
in support of Craig Haggard. If you know Craig. Craig

(01:15):
is a representative Indiana General Assembly. He's been in the
news here lately for very unfortunate reasons because his wife
was targeted by some idiot, reportedly someone in the State House,
but targeted her with a deep fake AI editing of

(01:37):
a video that she did when she was actually singing
at a charity event there talking about no good deed
goes unpunished. She's singing in a charity event in order
to support this particular charity. Somebody takes a video of
this and edits it through AI in a way that

(01:58):
made it pornographic, and that now is the subject of
a criminal investigation. And I hope they find the idiots
who did this. I don't care who they are, I
don't care what their job is. You're in the state House.
If you have fingerprints on this thing, you need to
go to jail. You need to lose your job. And
that is a crime. By the way, you create this
kind of AI pornography and publish it, which is to

(02:19):
show it to other people, that's a crime. It's crime Indiana,
it's crime in federal law. And I hope they fry
these people's asses, whoever they are, and I don't care
who they are, and I don't even care if there
are people I may have supported in the past. But
in the meantime, Craig and his wife are the victims
and all of this, and I hope when people see
this story they fully understand that that this was I

(02:43):
don't know, motivated by what I don't know, but certainly
childishness and frat boy behavior going on in the state House,
it appears to me. But in the meantime, there are
more important things on Craig's agenda, including his political career.
He's a representative in the Indiana State House. You may

(03:06):
see at this event on Tuesday an announcement about his
future plans, and in fact, I'm going to be there.
I'm going to speak and make an announcement in that regard,
and we love for you to be there. It's Tuesday,
August twenty, or excuse me, August twelfth, So this coming Tuesday,
August twelfth in Plainfield. It's the Charleston Pavilion. Starts at

(03:29):
six o'clock. If you don't know where that is, it's
fifty three seventy three South Sugar Grove Road in Plainfield,
or just google Charleston Pavilion. Contributions not required, but if
you'd like to make one, I'm sure that opportunity will
avail itself, but I'm looking forward to being there. I've
supported Craig since long before he was in the General Assembly.

(03:53):
I met Craig when he was actually working for the
NRAC and he was running the Friends of the NRA banquets,
including one of the largest ones in the country we
had in Hamilton County, and I got to know him
and working with him in that regard, working on other
issues with the National Rifle Association. After leaving NRA, he

(04:14):
had some other career opportunities, but then got back into
politics here in Indiana. He's been a great representative. I've
worked with him on several bills, including a bill that
he wrote his first session in the Indiana General Assembly.
And you know a lot of times the freshman, the
brand new kids on the block as representatives in the

(04:35):
General Assembly, they are just kind of looking to get
the lay of the land. Well, not Craig. He had
a bill not only did he introduced his first session,
and it was to protect the confidentiality of the data
that is in the Indiana Licensed to Carry Handgun database,
it's the State Police maintains. There was some concern that
through Open Records Act requests or through even ATF requests

(04:58):
for data on who has a license to carry in Indiana,
that could be used for nefarious purposes, including the creation
of unconstitutional databases. There's been certainly examples of that being
done and were attempted to be done in other states,
and it was a legitimate concern. Craig jumped on that

(05:19):
not only wrote the bill, not only introduced it, but
gott had passed his very first session in the Indiana
General Assembly here a few years ago, and he's had
a successful career in the Indian General Assembly since then.
And I'm excited to support him. So if you want
to come by and see us Tuesday, August twelveth, six
o'clock at the Charleston Pavilion in Plainfield. Would love to

(05:41):
see you. Another event that I'm also excited about for
different reasons, and this is cool, This is a cool event.
This is for the Salvation Army, and this is clays
for a cost. And if you listen to the Gun
Guy Show, you know I have great friends out of
Indiana gun Club located there in in Fortville. It's really

(06:02):
northeast side of Indy. It's out on one hundred and
thirteenth Street, one hundred and forty nine twenty six East,
one hundred and thirteenth Street. Mailing address is Fortville out there,
but it's right off of Geist essentially. But this is
where I learned to shoot sporting clays. Even though I've
been an instructor for thirty some years, I've been a
competitive shooter for a long time and certainly trained and

(06:25):
shot for my whole adult life. I just got into
sporting claves gots just really right before COVID hit, maybe
two years before COVID hit, and there's a whole new
experience for me, and I completely fell head over heels
and love with sporting clays. A lot of people describe
it as golf with a shotgun, and I think that's
a pretty good, pretty good metaphor. Because you know, you

(06:46):
have multiple stations. Each stations is east, station is different.
They can change the location, trajectory speed of each of
the launchers what we call traps, at each one of
those stations, and so while the the shooting position may
stay the same. Everything else can change. Where the birds
are coming from, where they're going, how high they're going,
how fast are going, with direction, and and it just

(07:10):
makes it load a load of fun. And I got
into it. I started competing, started doing the competitions through
the National Clay Target Association and it's just been a
lot of fun for me and something I've enjoyed. In fact,
I've slacked off a little bit on my clay shooting
and want to get back to it. But on September eleventh,

(07:33):
the Salvation Army is having clays for a cause at
Indiana Gun Club and I'm going to go out. I'm I'm,
I'm I'm gonna I'm gonna go out and shoot this.
But this is a fundraiser for Salvation Army specifically to
send children in need to the Hidden Falls Camp. This
is this is for underprivileged children and the Hidden Falls

(07:53):
Camp is actually run by the Salvation Army. It's out
near Bedford and it's a beautiful location. Then go out
there and then do ziplining and ride mountain bikes, engage
in archery, hike the hills and the woods out there.
It's just a beautiful location and a great opportunity for
underprivileged kids, but they need money to do that, and
so you can come out. You can compete for prizes.
They're going to be giveaways and door prizes. You can

(08:16):
register as an individual. It's two hundred and twenty five
dollars and yes that's a few coins, but this is
exactly what we need to do to raise money to
send these kids to this camp. If you want to
put a team together of four, can do that for
eight hundred bucks, so you can save some money each
of you guys. Put a couple of Benjamin's in the

(08:37):
pile and boom, you got a team registered. You can
go out there and have a hell of a lot
of fun, compete for prizes, maybe win the damn tournament.
But in the meantime, much more importantly, send some underprivileged
kids to camp there for this Salvation Army. So I'm
gonna be there. I'm going to shoot in it. Hell,
if I'm going to shoot in it, I'm planning to
win it. So you can come out and whip my

(08:58):
butt and in the same process as raising some valuable
money for a great cause. And we'd love to see
you out there and love to see you participate. You
can check that out. You can just look at Central
excuse me, Central USA dot Salvation Army dot org. Let
me give it to you again, Central Usa dot Salvation
Army dot org. I just googled it. I googled Clays

(09:22):
for a Cause Indiana Salvation Army and boom, it came
right up. And by the way, on the Haggard event
that's this Tuesday night, that website. If you want to go,
you can, you can, you can contribute, or you can
register for this amount. You don't for this event. You
don't have to register. You can just show up. But
it's Hoosiers for Haggard dot com. Hoosiers Foraggard dot com.

(09:43):
If you want to participate in that. But the other
is Clais for a Cause by the Salvation Army. Just
google Clays for a Cause Indiana Salvation Army. Boom. You
can register. You can sign up your team of four
and come out and again, come out and whip my
buddet sporting clays on some Stember eleventh. Uh, that's an
important date in our history, obviously, and what greater thing

(10:04):
could we be doing commemorating this great country by exercising
our Second Amendment rights and raising money for underprivileged kids.
That all sounds like a plan to me. Hope to
see it out there on September eleventh. Right now, we're
at the quarter hour. We're taking a break. I always
want to take your calls with your comments or questions
throughout the show. Give us a call. Three one seven
two three nine ninety three ninety three. That's three one

(10:26):
seven two three nine ninety three ninety three. This is
Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WIBC.

Speaker 2 (10:38):
Second to nine on the Second Amendment.

Speaker 1 (10:40):
This is the Gun Guy with Guy Ralford on ninety
three WYPC.

Speaker 4 (10:45):
You we welcome back on Guy Ralford on The Gun
Guy Show on ninety three WIBC. We're gonna switch gears
here a little bit, going a new topic. Before we do,
let's go to the phone lines. Ken has called and
welcome to the Gun Guy Show.

Speaker 5 (10:58):
Yes, I was calling about I was a friend of mine.
Lives in North Carolina. He's actually a deputy sheriff, and
I have a gun that I wanted to tell him.
Is there a process that's different if somebody's out of
state lives out of state?

Speaker 4 (11:19):
Yeah, generally speaking, it's a handgun or long gunner, it's
a long gun, okay. Well, there's some exceptions for selling
long guns to people that are contiguous states. That is,
a state that borders Indiana, But generally speaking, when somebody's
in another state, it's illegal to transfer a gun to
a resident of a different state unless you go through

(11:41):
a federal firearms licensee that is a licensed gun store.
So with that, what you could do is you could
ship it or have your local gun store ship it
for you for a charge, ship it to a gun
store that he can arrange that is willing to do
the transfer. And used to be back in the day,

(12:01):
gun stores did transfers for twenty five bucks. That was
just kind of the standard charge varied a little bit
here and there, and I've seen that cost be higher
or lower than that here lately, mostly higher. But if
he can go to a local gun store, you know
it's convenient to his house or whatever, and say hey,
will you do a transfer for me, and the gun
store says yes, then you have it shipped to that

(12:24):
gun store and he then goes in. He has to
fill out the forty four to seventy three form, just
like you do when you're buying a gun, pay the
transfer cost, and they run him through Nicks and he
passes the background check and he takes the gun home,
and you're safe, he's safe. Everything's legal, and nobody goes

(12:45):
to jail. There. There are limitations on shipping guns, so
you know, you know ups typical ups stores, their outlet stores.
You can walk in, They're not going to take a
package has a gun in it. Sometimes you can go
to the hubs get that to be But your local
gun store can help you with that a lot because
they ship guns all the time, and so they're a
great resource. That may charge you a bit, but the

(13:08):
very to me easiest and safest way have your local
gun storeship it to his local gun store. He pays
the transfer fee, and boom, you're good to go. Let's
get into an interesting topic here. And I was really
glad to see this, and that is that just in
the last couple of days, President Trump issued an executive order.

(13:30):
And you know, after all the wacky and mainly unconstitutional
things that Joe Biden did via executive order with respect
to our Second Amendment rights, it was such a pleasure
and has been such a pleasure since Trump's been in
office just this year to see all the great strikes

(13:53):
we've made in the area of Second Amendment rights by
executive order. And that's pretty fabulous given the fact things
were going the opposite way for the previous four years,
as everybody expected when Joe Biden was elected. But this
executive order, this touches on an issue that I've been
working on in and around for a number of years.

(14:14):
And what he called this executive order was guaranteeing fair
banking for all Americans. And what he's talking about there
is that for quite some time, really, since the Obama administration,
there has been an effort and a concerted effort. And
this is among gun control groups, Democrats, and government. It

(14:38):
originally was with the Obama administration itself and the financial industry.
And I'm talking about banks and credit card companies and
finance companies and credit card processing companies. But there's been
a concerted effort among gun control groups, liberals in the government,
and the financial industry in particular individual companies that are

(14:59):
more than willing to help in the area of infringement
of our Second Amendment rights. There's been a concerted effort
to discriminate against gun owners and in particular against business
that are involved in gun related industries. And this really
originated out of this came out of what the Obama

(15:21):
administration called Operation Choke Point. An Operation choke Point was
really pretty insidious when you look at it, and I
think evil in its nature, because it was the administration
deciding that it really just didn't like certain industries and

(15:41):
a couple you can sort of understand, like payday loan
companies that charge exorbitant interest rates. But what got lumped
into that were businesses involved in the lawful and highly
regulated of firearm sales, firearm and accessory sales, firearm ammunition

(16:04):
and accessory sales. And the Obama administration came up with
this plan through Operation Choke Point to say, you know
what if and by the way, I left insurance companies
off that list. If people can't get insurance and they
can't do banking, and here I'm talking about people engaged
in these businesses, and here I'm specifically talking about people

(16:25):
who run gun stores and manufactured guns. Maybe a small
local business that may make ammunition, or you're the mom
and pop gun store. If you can't get insurance, you
can't process credit cards, you can't run a business checking

(16:48):
account or business account? How do you stand business? And
that was exactly the idea. The word choke was in
choke point for a reason. They want to choke these
businesses to death. And so there were meetings members of
the Treasury Department from White House staff, where there are
meetings with with with heads of big big big bank,

(17:11):
big banks, to say, hey, you know what we're gonna
We're gonna make people safer in America by putting gun
stores out of business and and gun related businesses out
of business. Now, of course that's ludicrous. And and and
we know where criminals get their guns. Criminals steal their guns.

(17:35):
Criminals trade their guns for things like, oh say, drugs,
or buy them from other criminals. They get them from
fellow gang members and fellow criminals, and and and and
and a fairly fairly low number or ever quote unquote
legally bought from a gun store. And most of those
are illegally bought through star straw purchases, meaning they find

(17:57):
somebody that can pass background check and for a little
extra money they go in by it and then illegally
then transfer it. The purchase is illegal. That's a straw
purchase under state and federal law here in Indiana, and
then the transfer of that to the prohibited person is
also illegal. So there's this whole illegal industry going around
out there, including the black market on guns, which is

(18:20):
a live and well. Yet the idiots in the Obama
administration decided, well, we put lawful businesses out of business,
that'll somehow keep people safe. I don't think they even
believe that. I think it was just vindictive. There have
been such a long political battle with groups like NRA

(18:42):
and now well beyond NRA, now we have Second Amendment
Foundation and Gun Owners of America and here in Indiana
the Two Way Project. But gun owners and gun rights
groups and gun related businesses have been fighting with liberals
for a long time, and I think a lot of
it is just vindictiveness. National Shooting Sports Foundation, my friends

(19:02):
in that organization, I've worked on some great legislation, and
so really I think out of vindictiveness as much as anything,
and perhaps a bit of poorly thought out, misguided strategy
of putting less guns on the street and keeping people safe,

(19:23):
for they wanted to choke out lawful businesses that are
already highly regulated through the ATF and otherwise, and ever
Since then, we've seen a steady flow of incidents involving discrimination,
not just against gun stores, about against instructors. Yes, I've

(19:47):
had I had a credit card processing company, Square tell
me several years ago, Oh, you do firearms instruction. We
don't want to process your credit cards. What are you
talking about? Teach people how to safely and responsibly handle firearms?
People don't. I don't sell guns. They already have their gun.
They come to me and I teach them how to
safely and responsibly handle those guns. Oh well, no, we

(20:12):
associate that business with with with mass killings and violence.
Excuse me, I'm teaching lawful citizens how to defend themselves
from criminal violence. You got this backwards. Good friend of mine,
senior instructor cought for thirty years plus a civilian instructor

(20:35):
has both jobs and still is a police instructor thirty
plus years, gets a letter, a certified letter in the
mail from his bank saying we don't want to do
business with you anymore. We've closed both your business and
your savings account, your personal account, and here are certified
checks for your balances. The accounts are now closed and

(20:56):
will not be reopened. And he had no idea what
was going on? He was thinking, why is the irs
after me? I mean, what the hell is going on?
And through repeated calls, he eventually was found out from
the bank. It was because he was a firearms instructor.
He's a cop. He's out protecting and surfing another gentleman

(21:22):
who's now president of Indiana State Rifle and Pistol Association.
And I know he won't mind me telling this story
because I've heard him tell it in committee at the
State House. Because he's president of Indian State Rifle and
Pistol Association, his bank closed his accounts. As unbelievable as
that is. And this guy is a well respected attorney,

(21:44):
has been for thirty plus years, does lobbying for groups like,
oh say, the Boy Scouts and the Indiana National Guard
Reserve Organization. I mean, highly reputed groups, patriotic groups. But
because he's president of the n State Rifle of and
Pistol Association and does some whaw being on their behalf,

(22:07):
Boom Bank doesn't want to do business with them. And
it's a pervasive issue. During COVID, I had what I
called my gun shop round table. We have five microphones
besides mine and Jack's here in the studio, and I
filled all five microphones up with friends of mine, people
I knew who run gun stores, who owned gun stores,

(22:30):
and I really brought them in primarily to talk about
how they were doing during COVID. You know, were they
able to find AMMO? Can they find guns?

Speaker 6 (22:38):
You know?

Speaker 4 (22:38):
Or people coming to the store, you know, as if
I tried to close them down by the way, which
would have been illegal. It's a battle we fought a
number of years ago, the Emergency Powers law that gave
then Governor Holcomb the ability to shut down business specifically
set could not take action to disrupt the purchase, sale,

(22:59):
or possession of fire arms. I was built right into
the law. That's a protection we have right here in
Indiana that we ought to be thankful for. But I
was wanting to know how these gun stores were doing
during COVID, and really it just sort of occurred to
me as we're having this conversation. I didn't do that again.
That was that was a fun show, and I learned
a lot. Even though these were all people are friends

(23:20):
of mine, some of them I talk to certainly every week,
if not more often than that. But I still learned
a lot, just having a discussion with them and having
a group of them in the studio at the same time.
So it popped into my head to ask the question,
how many of you folks have had any problem with
a bank or a credit card company just because you're

(23:43):
a gun store. All five hand shot up and I
went around one by one. I said, well, what'd you have?
I said, oh, yeah, my credit card company dropped me,
and then my second credit card company dropped me. I've
had two banks close my account, and one after the
other they said my insurance company didn't want to do

(24:03):
business with me, and one after the other. These people
told very very similar stories. So we'll take a break.
We come back, I'll go into what is this executive order?
This executive order from President Trump? Say what does it
mean and what could it result in down the road?
And by the way, what have we also done some

(24:25):
good news, not so good in terms of what have
we been successful in doing here in Indiana to prevent
this kind of a discrimination. All related now to this
executive order just sign a President Trump. I think it
was yesterday, that's when I saw it reported. So I
wanted to talk about it here on the show. And
as always want to take your calls with questions or comments.
By the way, if you are associated with the firearms

(24:47):
industry and you've been discriminated against by a financial institution, insurance,
credit card, bank, whatever happens to be, give us a call.
I'd love to hear the story here on the air
three one seven, two, three, nine, ninety three, ninety three, three,
ninety three, ninety three. This is Guy Ralford on The
Gun Guy Show on ninety three WYBC.

Speaker 1 (25:13):
The show about gun rights, gun safety, and responsible gun ownership.
This is the Gun Guy with Guy Ralford on ninety
three WYBC.

Speaker 4 (25:23):
And welcome back. I'm Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy
Show on ninety three WYBC. Got a couple of people
call in, let's go to the phone lines. Fred has
called Fred. Welcome to the Gun Guys Show.

Speaker 7 (25:37):
Yes, sir, got a couple of questions for you. First
of all, let me give you the backdrop. So I
am moving and I am auctioning off for a whole
bunch of stuff. And I have a lot of firearms,
almost all of my bought, you know, privately, most of
them through friends in law enforcement. I'm really not concerned

(25:57):
about those so much, but I have others I've brought.
I bought from friends and acquaintances and stuff, and so
I'm auctioned off a whole bunch of other stuff. And
so I was going to throw these firearms in the
auction and it's uh just probably a little bit more
than a hundred firearms. So I've gone to other auctions

(26:19):
and when they auction off firearms, usually you buy it
and then they transfer it to a licensed gun store
and then you go there and you go through the
knicks and then you basically pick it up, you know. There.
So the auctioneer, which actually used to be an elected
in elected office who's an auctioneer, has basically said that

(26:46):
when he auctions off everything else I have that he's
not he doesn't care. He's not going to go through that.
That's somebody else's problem. And now, when I bought firearms
through a private citizen, I've had one of my cop
buddies called in make sure it's not stolen and things

(27:09):
like that. However, it's possible that it could have passed
then but then later reported stolen and.

Speaker 4 (27:16):
Then Fred buddy, this is getting a little along. Can
you get to your question?

Speaker 2 (27:21):
Yeah?

Speaker 7 (27:21):
My question is what should I do? He's saying he
doesn't care. He basically offered off and able to turn
around and hand it to him and somebody else's problem.
Am I stupid to allow that to happen.

Speaker 4 (27:33):
Yeah, well, listen, I can't give you legal advice on
the radio, but I can tell you how the law works.
The ATF says that you can always liquidate a private
collection and do that as a private individual, and that
doesn't put you in danger of being quote unquote engaged
in the business of buying and selling firearms that you

(27:54):
have to have a license for. And it sounds to me,
even though there are a lot of guns involved, that's
exactly what you do, and you're just getting rid of
guns and taking the money instead of the guns. So
you ought to be able to do that, but with
that number of guns. And again I'm not giving you advice,
I'm telling you if it were me, if I was
liquidating that number of guns, I would be uncomfortable going

(28:15):
through an auction that where the auctioneer company itself wasn't
an actual FFL. And I've been to auctions where the
auctioneer company has a Federal firearms license, and so if
it were me, I would find an auctioneer that has
this federal firearms license and have them do transfers on
all of them. Now, that may diminish to some small

(28:38):
degree the amount of income you get out of the thing,
because they're going to say, well, we got to do
all these transfers. But that to me would give me
comfort if just if it was me making the decision,
because one, I know it's being done legally number one,
and two, I know that my guns aren't going to
end up, at least not immediately in the hands of
people who shouldn't have guns, because all these people go

(28:59):
through a background track before they get any of my
guns from the auctioneer. So without telling you what to do,
that's how I'd approach that issue. Go back to the
phone lines, and Kelly has called, is my buddy Kelly?

Speaker 6 (29:12):
Yeah, it sure is. How you doing guy, Yeah?

Speaker 4 (29:13):
Man, Kelly? And Avon, how are you doing, Brotherton?

Speaker 6 (29:16):
Oh I'm doing real good on a hot Saturday.

Speaker 4 (29:18):
Yeah.

Speaker 6 (29:18):
But I tell you what, before President Trump signed that
executive order this week about telling the banks to quit
discriminating against people, I would have figured our chances were
about slim to none to get a bill related to
that through the Indiana General Assembly. I know we had

(29:38):
one up last year, it didn't get a hearing, and
then twenty twenty four we had one we did get passed,
but it didn't have the teeth we really wanted. With
the Attorney General's Office being the having the oversight with
the big hammer. It ended up being the banking inspectors well.

Speaker 4 (29:57):
And that was on the watching credit codes, which I'm
going to talk about. That's a subset to me of
the banking discrimination issue, but I'm going to get into
the credit card code issue. But you're right, Kelly, I
mean now at least two years. I think I can
remember three because the chairman of the Banking and Finance
Committee in the House has changed since first time we

(30:18):
did it. And where we're trying to get a bill
passed in Indiana to prevent discrimination by financial institutions against
those involved in the firearm industry or based on firearm
ownership or having a firearms related business. And I love
the teeth that those bills had in them. And this
was a model bill offered by the National Shooting Sports Foundation,

(30:39):
who represents the industry including gun stores and trainers and
gun ranges and many other businesses in the firearm related industry,
and what it said is that if you discriminate against
these businesses or these individuals based on their gun ownership
or involvement in the firearms industry, that's fine. You can

(31:01):
do that all day long, but the State of Indiana
will not do business with you. So if if you
want to process credit cards for you know, payments made
to the State of Indiana, or you know, you want
to have any accounts related to business that you know
being done with the State of Indiana, you can kiss
that all goodbye. We're not telling me how to do it.
That's why I liked it, because I'm not a big

(31:22):
fan of government telling individual small businesses or big businesses
for the most part, how to do business. I'm a
hands off, laissez fair conservative in that regard. But when
it comes to my Second Amendment rights, I kind of
like the idea of saying, discriminate all the hell you
want to, we'll just discriminate against you in terms of
you doing business with the State of Indiana. I liked

(31:42):
that because that wasn't giving them an absolute mandate telling
them what to do. It was just telling them there'll
be repercussions for discrimination.

Speaker 6 (31:49):
And not doing business with the great State of Indiana.
That's a pretty big stick right there.

Speaker 4 (31:54):
Yeah, it is. But that's the bill. And Kelly, thanks
so much for calling in. If people don't know, Kelly
is the co director of legislative Affairs, I get that right, Kelly.

Speaker 6 (32:05):
Yeah, it's either a legislative or government.

Speaker 4 (32:08):
I go, okay, co director of government or legislative affairs
the Indiana State Rifle and Pistol Association. And Kelly does
a great job there in the State House. He's been
coming for years, even before he was part of the
organization that did it, and then IRPA was smart to
get him involved and he continues to do a great job.
We're going to take a break here, we come back.

(32:28):
I'm going to talk about these couple of bills, and
Kelly and I bumped up against him a little bit,
but I want to talk about more specifically what these are,
as well as get in a little more detail of
what President Trump said in this executive order so people
can hear what we're talking about. But again, if you've
been the victim of discrimination, and even just on the
YouTube chat, my buddy Ross earls that I just had

(32:53):
make a rifle for me here. Just last year he
owns rock Op Defense Solutions in Avon, just mixed absolutely
superior fighting rifles on the AR fifteen platform primarily, and
he said it's a long list or something like that
in comment to talk in response to my comments about

(33:14):
discrimination against gun related businesses by the financial industry. So
there you go. But I'd love to hear your stories.
Give us a call three one seven two three nine
ninety three ninety three. I've got a lot of examples
just from talking to a lot of my buddies in
the firearms industry. Bug it into more what bills we've
had in Indiana where we've had some success where we haven't,

(33:34):
and the overlay of what President Trump's executive order has
to do with all of this. I'll get into all
of that when we come back. This is Guy Ralford
on The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WYBC.

Speaker 1 (33:49):
Now you've got a gun guy, Guy Ralford on ninety
three WYBC.

Speaker 4 (33:56):
And welcome back. I'm Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy
Show on three WIBC. So we got a little bit
of a short segment here, but President Trump and I'll
come back and revisit this after the top of the
hour issued this executive order just this last week, last
couple of days, and what he says is that he
wants banking regulators within the next one hundred and eighty

(34:17):
days to remove the use of consideration of involvement in
the firearms industry from the process of banks making financial
decisions on who they do business with and who they don't.
And this falls under the general category of d banking.

(34:38):
And that's exactly what Operation Choke Point back during the
Obama administration focused on, was d banking. They want regulators
to stop that practice. Now I'll get into more detail
after the top of the hour. Right now, we're taking
a break. This is Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy
Show on ninety three WIBC.

Speaker 1 (34:57):
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of
a free state, the right of the people to keep
in bear arms shall not be infringed. This is the
Second Amendment, and this is the Gun Guy.

Speaker 3 (35:12):
Boom boom boom, boom bang bang bang bang boom boom, boom, boom,
bang bang.

Speaker 2 (35:21):
Bom Guy Ralford on ninety three WYPC.

Speaker 4 (35:26):
And welcome back for hour number two of The Gun
Guy Show. Here on ninety three WIBC. Before the break,
I was talking about this executive board that came out
from President Trump. It has to do with d banking
of those individuals or businesses involved with firearms or the
firearms industry, and it's to prevent the kind of discrimination

(35:46):
that we've been seeing for a number of years, certainly
since the Obama administration. As I mentioned, and if you
talk to somebody in the firearms industry. In fact, my
friend Ross, who owns the business that I just bought
a rifle from Rockop Defense Solutions at Avon Heap on
the YouTube chat, had big, long, multiple paragraphs of all

(36:09):
the challenges starting trying to start a new gun manufacturer
and retailer and dealing with all the different insurance and
banking and credit card issues, not to mention institutions like
Google and others. The discrimination is just rampant against Second
Amendment related businesses. But the executive order comes out and

(36:31):
it really went to primarily the regulators within the federal
government that regulate the banking industry, and it said focus
on either new rule making or even potentially new legislation
that can reduce or eliminate this unlawful d banking that
is depriving banking and other financial services on a discriminatory basis,

(36:53):
and then also directed the Small Business Administration to, among
other things, inform all of the SBA's clients or members
that if they've been denied access to payment processing services,
for instance, or banking services by financial institutions, that those
rights are being restored. And further orders the Treasury Secretary

(37:16):
to develop a comprehensive strategy for further measures to combat
politicized or unlawful debanking activities. And again this is focused
specifically on firearms related businesses. So this is music to
my ears. However, just as we said over and over again,
when Joe Biden issued executive orders telling the ATF to

(37:38):
basically run out and infringe our Second Amendment rights at
every opportunity, we would say, hold on, he's trying to
do by executive order what only Congress can do. And
then we won I say we meaning pro two eight
groups like goun Owners of America and Second Amendment Foundation
and RA and others one in court because the ATF

(38:00):
exceeded its authority and oftentimes changed the words of Congress
in trying to do what Biden wanted the ATF to do.
For instance, when they banned bump stocks, they essentially changed
the definition of machine gun that Congress wrote in the
National National Firearms Act in nineteen thirty four. And same

(38:27):
thing when they tried to ban forced reset triggers. They
exceeded their authority and they and their rules were inconsistent
with the federal statutes they're regulating under. And the same
argument that we used when we didn't like what Biden
was doing by executive order, and the same legal arguments

(38:51):
and the limitations on the process required by what's called
the Administrative Procedures Act, which tells federal regulations excuse me,
tells federal agencies how they have to pass regulations and
how they go through rule making and that whole process
with public comment, et cetera, et cetera. That's how we

(39:12):
got the pistol brace regulation declared unenforceable and at court
in Texas because the ATF didn't comply with the Administrative
Procedures Act and just sort of made it up as
they went in a way that wasn't legal, and that's
why it got tossed. So we're on the other side
of all those arguments now, and that's okay. If Congress

(39:36):
is willing to get in at the federal level, and
to some degree, we can fix a lot of this
at the state level here in Indiana if we can
get not just the members of the Indiana General Assembly,
but the committee chairs that actually matter on this issue, like, oh, say,

(39:57):
the Banking and Finance Committee in the Houses and the
parallel committee in the Senate, where we've bogged down on
this before. Because if we can get the laws changed
to make this kind of discrimination illegal or at least
create important disincentives to make banking institutions financial institutions think

(40:20):
twice about this kind of discrimination, then we can go
a long way toward fixing the problem. So, as I
mentioned on the call with Kelly, we've had a bill
at least twice, i want to say three times filed
in the Indiana General Assembly that would say, hey, financial institutions,

(40:43):
you can't discriminate against the firearms industry or individuals involved
in the firearms industry on that basis, and if you do,
a state of Indiana will discriminate against you by not
doing business with you. Again, it wasn't a law that
said you cannot do this, it is illegal because a
lot of the free enterprise people, a lot of people

(41:06):
supporting the business side of free business unburdened by government regulation,
said hold On, I had a little bit of problem
just telling them they can't make their own decisions on
who they do business with. That's why I like the
stick that came along with that bill, that is the
enforcement Provision, because it didn't say they couldn't discriminate. You

(41:29):
can choose who you do business with, but guess what,
the state of Indiana can choose who it does business
with as well. And to a free enterprise guy, that
sat a little easier with me. But that's the bill
we can't get through committee. We had it heard in
the House Banking and Finance Committee. Wants after we had
a hearing on it, and a lot of people told

(41:51):
a lot of compelling stories. I told my stories about
how credit card companies didn't want to do business with me.
Charlie Hilton, and the president of the Indiana State Rifle
and Pistol Association told his story about just because he's
a president of ISRPA, he had banks not want to
do business with him, and gun stores, gunshop owners. We
had a lot of compelling testimony, and then you had

(42:14):
the Banking lobby people stand up with the gangster style
pinstriped suits. I want to add and think, well, basically,
we're big banks and we had to do business the
way we damn well want to do business. It was
the message I heard I may not be completely objective
in that assessment. And lord and behold, the committee chair

(42:35):
didn't call it for a vote. We took testimony, we
heard testimony, the committee heard testimony, but then it didn't
get a vote, and it never did. It just sort
of went away. And then the next year or two
we had the same bill offered, couldn't even get it
a hearing and committee. That's frustrating. Have we done any

(42:57):
good at all in this area? Well, a couple of
bills we've had passed who have become law that are
much more tangential in my mind, I deal with more
peripheral issues, but on the same subject. Generally, one is
that the Treasure through one statute, has been directed to
look at where Indiana pension funds go in terms of

(43:18):
what financial institutions and determine if they're using these sort
of woke scoring systems, on on on, oh, and now
the acronym's not coming to me on social issues. That
includes participation in the gun related industry as as as

(43:42):
a means of discriminating against what customers that they that
they will take or who what businesses they will support.
That that that those financial institutions that use those sort
of woke social credit scores for lack of a better term,
won't be the financial instututions that Indiana invests with for

(44:03):
purpose of it. It's very large and I'm sure very
lucrative for the financial institutions that handled things like pension
funds administered by the State of Indiana. So in terms
of the sort of woke social credit scores that we've
seen companies utilize, Indiana's taking a step to discourage that,

(44:23):
one that I was very glad to see pass and
I testified in favor of this in both the House
and the Senators. I recall was a bill just in
the last year. I believed twenty twenty four might have
been twenty twenty three now I think about it. That's
a bad thing when you get old, time goes by
a lot faster. But it was a bill offered by
Representative Jake Teshka that we got passed signed into law

(44:44):
by Governor Holcombe and This has to deal with the
use of merchant credit codes, and what I thought was
a very devious scheme by gun control proponents, liberals and
government and the financial industry to not only discriminate against
gun owners, gun related businesses, or individuals involved in the

(45:09):
in the firearms industry, to not only discriminate against them,
but to gather data on them that would be useful
for future discrimination through merchant credit codes. What are merchant
credit codes? How was that going to unfold? What do
we do about it here in Indiana? That's what we'll
go into when we come back. Right now, we're taking

(45:30):
a break, Give us a call, Join the discussion. Three
one seven two three nine ninety three ninety three three
one seven two nine ninety three, ninety three. This is
Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WIBC.

Speaker 1 (45:46):
Pure Rights with Pure Responsibilities your guns. This is the
Gun Guy with Guy Ralford on ninety three WIVC.

Speaker 4 (45:57):
So what did we do here in Indiana to prevent
the use of quote unquote merchant credit codes in a
way that can discriminate against against gun related, firearms related
individuals or businesses because you necessarily associate those things merchant
credit codes. Well, what happened is back in September of
twenty twenty two, the International Standards Organization, it's actually based

(46:20):
in Switzerland. They're the ones who come up with these
credit card codes. When you use your credit card or
your debit card, there's a code that gets associated with
the kind of purchase that you just made, based on
the business that you're doing the transaction in. So, for instance,

(46:40):
if I stopped off and had lunch on my way
downtown at a restaurant, then boom, there's a restaurant MCC
merchant credit code that gets attached to that transaction when
I paid for my launch. In September of twenty twenty two,
a number of individuals organizations, including several gun control groups.

(47:04):
We're talking about the Brady Campaign and the so called
Violence Policy Center and the Gifford Center, Mom's Demand, those
type people, they had been putting pressure on this International
Standards organization that creates these codes and organizes them and
distributes them for use by credit card companies. They've been
putting pressure on that organization to create a new code

(47:30):
specifically for firearm and ammunition purchases. And what happened in
September twenty twenty two is that group, the International Standards
Organization agreed to do that and implemented a new code
for firearms and ammunition merchants. So if you run a
if I'm in a gun store and I go I

(47:50):
go into a gun store to do business, and I
use my credit or debit card at the gun store,
then that code shows up in that transaction, and that
is publicly available information to the extent that the financial
institutions involve agree to make it public. The financial institution

(48:16):
keeps that excuse me, keeps that data. And how do
you know they're even using it? Well, a lot of
us now get summaries at the end of the month.
Here's your spending information based on the debit card you
have with our bank. It'll say, do you spend fourteen
percent on retail and thirty eight percent on dining and

(48:38):
food and whatever else. Well, that's the data that they've
collected through the use of those merchant credit codes. But
why would I mention it's public data to the extent
the financial institutions care to make it public. Because when
the federal lawmakers who were puts for this, and again

(49:01):
it wasn't a federal law passed in the United States.
It was talking this international standards organization to simply implement
this code. But when people were announcing it, like anti
gun politicians, like the gun control groups, the announcement they
made they said they called this the first step towards
facilitating the collection of valuable financial data that will help

(49:24):
law enforcement, encountering financing, the financing of terrorism efforts, and
identifying potential mass shooters. Collection of valuable financial data that
will help law enforcement. Well, hold on, what that's telling

(49:46):
you is the intental along was to collect this and
then turn it over to O, say the ATF, And
that's going to identify potential mass shooters or the financing
of terrorism efforts simply because I'm using my debit card
in a gun storm. What makes no sense identifying potential

(50:09):
mass shooters. Let's focus on that one. And this is
what we all debated in twenty I believe it was
twenty twenty three when we got our bill passed in
Indiana prohibits financial institutions from using the Merchant Credit Code
for Firearms Businesses SOLAW in Indiana we successfully got passed.
It doesn't get a lot of fanfare like a lot

(50:29):
of other successes we've had in the General Assembly, but
I'm damn proud of this one because this was nefarious.
This was evil. And in terms of the plan to
collect this data, collected data on law abiding citizens using
their debut or credit cards in highly regulated, lawful businesses. Now,

(50:49):
are crimes ever committed to people ever illegally buy guns
or attempt to do so. Sure, but ninety nine point
nine percent of the data collector was going to be
on you and me use our credit are our debit
cards and gun stores? But why does it make no
sense that the data would be useful for those purposes? Well,
first of all, if I go into a gun store.

(51:12):
I mentioned Indie Arms right where I'm going to teach
my gun law class coming up in September. If I
go into Indie Arms and I buy a two thousand
dollars gun safe that I've got my eye on, nice, big,
beautiful Liberty safe. I want that safe, and I put

(51:33):
my debit card down and I buy my two thousand
dollars Liberty Safe, then there's a code that says I
spent two thousand dollars at a gun store that shows
up in my financial data. And if my bank chooses
to share that with law enforcement, which was the plan
all along. Based on the announcements that were made around

(51:55):
the implementation of the merchant credit code specifically for gun
stores or gun and ammunition and related merchants. All it
says is that Guy Rafford spent two thousand dollars in
a gun store. It doesn't tell them what I bought.
So I could have bought depending on what rifle we're

(52:17):
talking about, I could have bought three ars where I
could have bought two thousand dollars worth of ammunition. Or
I could have about a gun safe where I could
have bought four handguns. Nobody knows from that code, from

(52:37):
that data. And I'm a firearms instructor, So when I
was teaching a lot more shooting classes, I would go
in and a lot of times I would have it
as an option for my students, so I would provide
the ammunition if they didn't have to bother bringing their
own ammunition. So I would buy a lot of ammo.
Hell I like to shoot, I buy ammo in bulk. Now,
so my credit to my debit cards as it will,

(52:59):
it show if this code were in use in Indiana,
that I'm buying a lot, I am Oh sure, does
that mean I'm a terrorist? Does it mean I'm a
potential mass shooter? Or does it mean that I'm a
law abiding citizen conducting a lawful business. And who the
hell can tell the difference just based on an amount
of money I'm spending in a gun store. It doesn't

(53:20):
make any sense. It was a trojan horse. It literally
it was a headfake. Oh, we want to do this
to prevent mass shootings and identify potential terrorists. No, you don't.
You want to track who's buying whatever they're buying, who's
spending money in gun stores. You want to track that.

(53:46):
You want to turn it over to government, and you
want the government to be able to track it. And
you even in my mind, and this isn't this isn't paranoid.
This is exactly what these people wanted, the collection of
valuable financial data that will help law enforcement. If this
is excuse me, I have a little frog in my
throat here that keeps popping up when I least expect it.

(54:07):
If if the benefit of this is the collection of
valuable financial data that will help law enforcement, quote unquote,
what does the government do when you give them a
lot of data like O say, millions and million, tens
or hundreds. Who knows how many millions of transactions go
on in gun stores every day across this country, and

(54:31):
certainly the aggregate number to build up an e What
is the government going to do with that? They're going
to put it in a database, of course they will.
They're not going to have notebooks, three ring notebooks full
of printed paper sitting around with a bunch of credit
card codes in them. They're going to put it in
a database. And that was a way to track you
and track me. And if you don't think given the

(54:54):
same banks that are closing accounts based on businesses that
people are are in, or even what private organizations like
the Indiana State Rifle and Pistol Association you may be
part of the leadership of, you don't think they'll start
shutting down people's credit or debit account you know, checking
accounts based on how much money they're spending in gun

(55:15):
stores that they can track through these codes. It's a
basis for discrimination, and it's a basis for government overwatch.
It's a basis for surveillance. I'm telling you right now,
that's exactly why they wanted to do it, and so
now Indiana is one of just a handful of states
that abandoned banned the use of the merchant credit codes
for firearm stores here in Indiana. And not so long ago,

(55:39):
for instance, MasterCard came out and said, well, it looks
like there's some inconsistency among states since we can't necessarily
use these, so we're pausing the use of this credit
card code for gun related purchases or purchases at gun
related businesses. We're going to pause that while we re
examine it. Boom, big victory right there. But when I

(56:03):
saw President Trump's executive Order Justice last in the last
couple of days, I got excited because the merchant credit
is all related ab use merchant credit codes again, apart
from the surveillance part, which is nefarious and creepy enough,
but it was it was it was designed to be
able to allow for discrimination and facilitate discrimination against gun
related businesses and people who make purchases and gun related

(56:27):
businesses themselves. There's no doubt about it. And so the
general discrimination Trump's looking to head off, we've already taken
at least one swing at that successfully here in Indiana
and there's more work to be done, and the general
discrimination Bill, the general anti discrimination Bill, is one that
I still want to push. Uh, give us a call.

(56:47):
You want to join the discussion. Three one seven two
three nine ninety three, ninety three. We're taking a break.
Russ shift gears a little bit. When we come back,
go to a different subject, and if we got any callers,
we'll go to the phone lines. Give us a call.
Three one seven two three nine ninety three nine, he
says Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy Show on ninety
three WYBC.

Speaker 2 (57:08):
Second to none on this second amendments.

Speaker 1 (57:10):
This is the Gun Guy with Guy Ralford on ninety
three WYPC.

Speaker 4 (57:16):
And welcome back. I'm Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy
Show on ninety three WIBC. So I enjoyed reading an
article over at Reason dot com. And if you don't,
you don't follow Reason. They do a nice job, and
it's like any other publication. I'm not going to agree
with everything I see over there, but their approach to

(57:37):
things I think is often rational and factually based, and
that I appreciate. They're also not afraid to call out
other publications when they see things published that are ridiculous,
like osay the New York Times tends to do on
a regular basis, and the folks over at Reason went
after the New York Times pretty hard here recently, based

(57:59):
on reporting that the Times did about the shooting in
Manhattan where somebody from Nevada and I don't name these people,
you want to go do a mass shooting because you
want to be famous, Well, on my little old Saturday
show in Indiana, I'm not going to help. Does that
make any difference on a national scale, Well, of course not.
But hey, if we all in the media had the

(58:21):
same approach, I think we'd have an effect because a
lot of these people just want to be famous, They
just want their name known across the country. And if
the media would control that, I think we'd cut down
on the number of these things we see. But the
guy in Nevada took his ar, drove to Manhattan, New York,

(58:44):
went to the building that houses the NFL along with
several other businesses, and killed a number of people. And
of course being New York, and there was a mass shooting,
and one was that I'm I'm sure was designed to
be much worse than what it was. As horrific as
it was, I believe five people, including the shooter, lost

(59:06):
their lives, and as horrific as it was, obviously I
think the guy designed it to be worse. But the
New York Times, following the Rama Emmanuel approach, would never
want a good crisis to go to waste, and so,
like we always see anytime we have a shooting, we
saw demands for gun control and blaming states that don't

(59:30):
have the worst forms of gun control, like Osay, New York,
blaming other states and their quote unquote weak gun laws.
Indiana gets accused of this all the time. Our weak
gun laws get accused of causing all the gangland shootings
in Chicago, which of course is ludicrous, but that's what

(59:51):
we get blamed for all the time. Well, here the
Times decided, well, we'll just blame the weak gun laws
in Nevada for why we had this shooting in Manhattan.
And what they focused on was they said that that
the shooter had been committed to a mental institution in Nevada,

(01:00:11):
which should have made him unable legally prohibited from buying
a gun in Nevada or anywhere else. But the weak
background check systems, the weak background check requirement through the
laws of Nevada allowed this guy to escape detection even

(01:00:33):
though he'd been committed to a mental institution, buy his guns,
drive to New York and commit the horrible crime. And
the headline from the Times article was gunman's mental health
history did not prohibit gun purchase, and the suggestion was that,
of course it should have because he was legally prohibited.

(01:00:54):
Well was he and what actually happened? And this actually
points out I think an important issue that that I
deal with is part of my law practice all the
time in explaining to people what issues they're facing if
they've been denied a gun purchase or denied a handgun
license and we're trying to work through exactly what the
issue is. I deal with this issue all the time.

(01:01:15):
The law that we're dealing with is a federal state
part of the Gun Control Acts in nineteen sixty eight.
It's been a manded, expanded, and amended significantly since nineteen
sixty eight, primarily through the Brady Bill in nineteen eighty
four and before that in the Firearm Owners Protection Acts
in nineteen eighty six. But one of the things that

(01:01:36):
was built into that law as it exists today is
that you're prohibited from possessing a firearm if you've been
adjudicated to be mentally defective. Is the term in the statute? Now?
Mentally defective is I think a somewhat objectionable term, as
not easily offended as I am. That's somewhat of an

(01:01:57):
offensive term. But generally that's been interpreted through regulation and
case law to say, if you've been involuntarily committed to
a mental institution based on a finding you're a danger
to yourself or others, then you're prohibited. Does that mean

(01:02:19):
if you've ever had any mental health treatment that you're
prohibit possessing a firearm. No, does not mean that. And
by the way, the Indiana State Police and their application
for a licensed to carry handgun, and even though there's
no license requirement in Indiana, there are many many advantages
to having one, and I encourage people who want to

(01:02:40):
carry guns certainly to go ahead and get their license
if they so choose. But in their application it says
you ever been treated for any form of mental illness.
I'm paraphrasing, I don't think exact language. You've been treated
for a mental illness? And so why have people call
me all the time? I mean they're in front of
their computer, they're filling out the application, and I'll say, well,

(01:03:01):
I'm on antidepressants that my doctor prescribed to me several
years ago. Do I have to answer yes to this?
And and and and There is a legal definition in
Indiana of mental illness, and typically it involves causing dysfunction
and your ability to live your life. And a lot

(01:03:21):
of times that what people are being treated for, like
minor forms of depression, don't reach that level. And it's
appropriate and and honest to say no. But other people
have been treated for other conditions. But if they say yes,
they'll likely to get denied their license to carry. But
that doesn't mean they're they're they're legally prohibited, and it
doesn't mean they won't eventually get their license. What the

(01:03:42):
state police really is looking for is someone who's seen
you as a mental health care professional, and preferably recently,
to say, oh, yes, I treated them for this, that
or the other thing, but I've never seen any indication
they're danger to themselves or other But that still is
not even the real legal steam for possessing a firearm,

(01:04:04):
as set forth in federal statutes. That's adjudicated to be
mentally defective, which means involuntarily committed. That's what applies to
the subject matter of this New York Times article saying
this guy shouldn't have been allowed to buy a gun.
He should have shown up if Nevada had decent background checks,
was the suggestion of the article. The fact this guy

(01:04:25):
had been committed would have shown up. And I went
on a little bit of a bunny trail there with
the Indian analysised carry process a little bit of a
different issue. But this guy had had mental health issues, Yes,
had a history of mental health problems. Yes, twice he
had been briefly held for what in Nevada they called

(01:04:45):
this is in twenty twenty two and twenty twenty four,
a mental health crisis hold. That's when authorities, typically police,
based on personal observation, have probable cause to believe as
a result of, for instance, mental illness or sometimes substance abuse,
there there's a substantial likelihood of harm to themselves or others.

(01:05:09):
They can be held and evaluated. Indiana has what's called
an emergency detention, where someone in Indiana could be held
up to seventy two hours, taken in by police to
a mental health facility and evaluated held up to seventy
two hours. If within forty eight hours, the institution or

(01:05:33):
law enforcement applies to a court to hold them longer
to be evaluated for a longer period of time to
decide whether they should go through the involuntary commitment process.
They can be held up to fourteen days if a
court approves that, and then potentially can go through an
involuntary commitment process and be committed against their will at
the time they're committed. After that whole process, that's when

(01:05:57):
they're prohibited from possessing a firearm Voluntarily committed. What about
in Nevada what they called a mental health crisis hold
or in Indiana hear what we call an emergency detention.
If you go through one of those, or let's say
you check yourself in. I've had people call me going
I've had some horrible things happen in my life. I
don't think I can deal with this stress. I want

(01:06:19):
to check in voluntarily to the Saint Vincent Stress Center
or whoever wherever it might be. I'm going to seek
out some help and I want to check myself in
and get it on an inpatient basis. Am I going
to lose my gun rights. I was well go into
when we come back, was we wrap up this week's
edition of The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WIBC.

Speaker 2 (01:06:43):
Second to nine on this Second Amendment.

Speaker 1 (01:06:45):
This is the Gun Guy with Guy Ralford on ninety
three WYPC.

Speaker 4 (01:06:51):
And welcome back for the last segment here on The
Gunky Show on ninety three WIBC. And you know, talking
about the menst mental health issue. One thing is it
breaks my heart is when people are calling me, like
I mentioned before the break, and they're considering going and
getting treatment because they feel like they need treatment, but

(01:07:11):
they're hesitating because they're concerned they're going to lose their
Second Amendment rights. And I can't honestly tell them, no,
there's no possibility of that happening. For instances I've reported
on before and it got people upset, but what I
said was exactly accurate. That is the VA, even where

(01:07:33):
veterans have a significant disability rating, for instance, based on
a PTSD and they've pointed a fiduciary to handle their
VA benefits, some veterans, particularly under Obama and Biden, were
getting letters from the federal government saying they were legally
prohibitive from possessing firearms. Did that actually meet the definition

(01:07:57):
of adjudicated to be mentally defective? I don't think so.
And we've had acts in Congress introduced and in fact,
well we just had one tagged on to the most
recent appropriations bill that would actually prevent that from happening.
That's a great thing, But it was the Times, the
New York Times correct when they said that based on

(01:08:17):
this guy going through this mental crisis, hold and similar
thing we have here in Indiana, an emergency detention, and
a lot of times red flag cases start with an
emergency detention. I've seen that happen over and over and
over again. But I'm not talking about red flag I'm
talking about separate from a red flag proceeding. Are you

(01:08:38):
prohibitive from possessing firearms simply because law enforcement has taking
you in, taking you to a mental hospital, for instance,
and had you held and evaluated. That's what happened in Nevada,
That's what happens often here in Indiana. But it's what
happened with the Manhattan mass shooter. Was New York Times
correct that he'd been committed therefore he was legally prohibitive
from possessing the firearm. No oh no. That first step

(01:09:04):
of being held and evaluated is just that that's held
and evaluated until authorities take the next step and actually
have you committed against your will. Now you're being held
briefly and evaluated against your will. If people call me
and when they've been released very upset saying I had
false allegations made against me, there was no way I

(01:09:24):
was a danger to myself or anyone else. I'd just
sit in a hospital for twelve or fourteen or twenty
four hours. But they're held against their will, yes, but
only while they're being evaluated and not based on an
actual determination and an adjudication that they're a danger to
themselves or others. That's what separates that emergency hold. That's
why New York Times was wrong. I was glad to

(01:09:46):
see Reason dot Com call them out, and it was
appropriate they did so. But it's also something we need
to take a look at, and it's something that I've
been concerned with about the abuse of our red flag law,
accusing people of being mentally ill when they're really not,
and then having a red flag proceedings started where even

(01:10:06):
though they had not legally prohibited under the Federal Statute.
Now they are because they've been red flagged and they
have to go through that process in state court. Whole
another discussion. We're wrapping it up for this week. They
hope you enjoyed it. You hope you come back. I
always shoot straight, be safe. This is Guy Ralford on
The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WIBC