The Gun Guy - Full Show - 8/23/25

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.

Speaker 1 (00:25):
Bang boo, Guy Ralford on ninety three WYBC.

Speaker 3 (00:30):
Welcome afternoon, and welcome to the Gun Guy Show here
on ninety three WIBC. We're throwing here with us, and
I got a lot to get into, as I always
do you know this first topic I'm going to discuss.
I really I'm usually pretty decisive on what I want
to talk about on the show and what I don't

(00:50):
what I want to write about, whether it's out on
the internet or otherwise. I've usually got a pretty clear idea.
And I really went back and forth on this, but
really decide I did I think for the right reasons
that I do want to address some real I think
scam artists and grifters that are out there claiming to

(01:12):
be Second Amendment advocates, and I just think at every opportunity,
those of us who have been involved in the fight
for a long time, and those of us who actually,
oh say, show up at the state House, who actually
take part in drafting legislation and then fighting to get
it passed. Those of us who fight to stave off

(01:34):
the attacks on our Second Amendment rights with a lot
of success here in Indiana. You know, when we see
somebody really I think, just trying to profiteer off others' efforts.
And there are a lot of people fighting every day
for Second Amendment rights, and a lot of people have
done some amazing things right here in the state but
to protect our Second Amendment rights. And occasionally, though, we

(01:57):
see a scam artist come along, really just trying under
line their own pockets. And that's exactly what we have
in a gun group that I'm starting to get solicitations
from on email. I don't know how I ended up
on their email list, because I certainly have not sent
any money to this organization and I haven't signed up
in any way to receive their stuff. But apparently I'm

(02:19):
on some list because I get solicitations for money all
the time from them, and it's always in relation to
you know, oh no, there's this horrible bill that's been filed.
I've got a couple here lately and I'm talking about
the Indiana Firearms Coalition. There's the group I'm talking about,
and this is this is the Door Brothers d r R.

(02:42):
And listen, if you're you know, not in your car,
you know a place where you can you can safely
do so at your computer on your phone. Just google
Door Brothers, Scam Artists or Aaron Door, Chris Door, and
the third one I think is Alan I'm not entirely sure,

(03:04):
but Chris Door and Alan Door are the two I
think faces the organization. And they have these so called
gun rights groups that have popped up in several different states,
and apparently, according to a video they just released, they
formed Indiana Firearms Coalition in twenty twenty one. And the

(03:25):
video that kind of set me off and the reason
I decided to talk about them here on the show
tonight is video they put out here just recently that
they called, you know, the origins of IFC or Indiana
Firearms Coalition, and they talked about, well, why did we
form Indiana Firearms Coalition? And you know, what are the

(03:45):
wonderful things we've accomplished and what are we trying to
fix in terms of the problem with all these other
people that are failing so miserably to protect Second Amendment
rights in Indiana. And that was the tenor of the video.
And I don't so much want to direct people to
the video because they start off bragging about the number
of views they get on their YouTube videos, and hey,

(04:06):
I'm guilty. I went and watched the thing, and by
the time it was over, I was so angry. I
was angry generally. I was angry on a personal level
because they really tried to claim credit for a lot
of things that I directly contributed to. If not, we're
responsible for. And I tried to be an adult on

(04:26):
those things. But it's something that can certainly set you
off a bit, as it did me. But the Indian
A Firearms Coalition, and listen, I think they intentionally created
a name very close to the Firearms Policy Coalition. Now
that's a national group. And let's just talk about gun
rights groups for a minute before I get back to
the door Brothers being the grifters and the scam artists

(04:50):
that they are. There are a lot of national organizations
out there, and listen, for decades, for generations, we had
really since the not long after I believe it was
a civil war the NRA was for him and and
and NRA has been the big kid on the block
with gun rights groups and and have done an awful

(05:12):
lot of good for an awful lot of years. A
lot of us have become very concerned about the direction
of NRA, especially under Wayne law Pierre there I think
he was executive vice president, but he was the guy
running the organization. And there were whole kinds of litigation
involving mismanagement of funds, and and and the direction of NRA,
you know, drifted to a large degree, and so many

(05:36):
so much of its resources and the money people contributed
started going to defending the lawsuits against NRA as opposed
to going out there and doing the things that we
really needed to get done. Now, make no mistake, I
am a benefactor level life member of NRA, and I
truly believe we need a strong, fully resourced, powerful influential

(05:59):
NRA in this country. Gun rights are better off when
the n RA A is fully functional, fully fully funded,
and doing the job that they they were chartered to do.
When when the group was created again, it started off
as really a marksmanship focused group, and it's quickly focused

(06:19):
to being policy and legislative and lobbying to a large
degree after so many of the attacks started being launched
on our Second Amendment rights. But n RA in recent
years is one of the reasons I formed a two
A project. I was worried about a gap between n
ra's influence and ability to help us fight off attacks
on our two AA rights, help us get uh pro

(06:42):
two AA legislation passed. I said, you know what, I
don't wanna. I don't I don't want to. I don't
want to. I'm wanna. I don't want to miss any
opportunities here. I don't want to need gaps. And and
this says nothing against NRA. I'm still a proud member.
I go to their national meetings, but a lot of
us lost a lot of confidence, especially over the last five, six,

(07:03):
seven years in NRA. But again I'm a defender and
supporter and member and will remain so of NRA. And
I'm very glad we now have three board members at
NRA from Indiana. We have Craig Haggard, state representative now
running for Congress. We have Charlie Hilton and who's president

(07:24):
of the Indiana State Rifle and Pistol Association, a good
friend of mine, and just a great guy, as is
Craig Haggard. And then you have Jim Jim Toms, state
Senator from Indiana, who drafted our preemption law here in
Indiana went into effect back in twenty eleven, which is
still one of the most important pro gun bills we've
ever gotten passed in this state, which prevents local governments

(07:48):
from regulating firearms, which is huge. If you allowed Bloomington
and Fort Wayne, in East Chicago, Hammond, all these different
communities to regulate guns the way they would independently as
a local government, we'd have a whole different situation here
in Indiana. So Jim Toms did that. Tom's tomes you

(08:08):
hear different pronunciations. I just call him Jim when I
see him. But he and I've worked together a lot too.
So with those three guys on the board of NRA,
I'm hopeful they can really help steer NRA in the
right direction because we need NRA. But in addition to NRA,
there are some other really great groups that have had
a lot of success here recently, especially in the courtroom,

(08:31):
and there I'm talking about Gun Owners of America. I'm
also a proud member of Gun Owners of America GOA.
They've done some great things. They've won some great victories
for US in court. Firearms Policy Coalition, and that's the
group I mentioned because I'm concerned that Indiana Firearms Coalition,
I'm sorry. Firearms Policy Coalition is the national group that

(08:54):
I'm fully behind. They do great work, They've won some
great victories in court in a firearms coalition. Is are
the Door Brothers. That's a Door Brothers organization. They've set
up similar lobbying quote unquote groups or so called gun
rights groups across multiple states. These guys are from Iowa apparently,

(09:15):
but they've set up these kind of sister organizations in
different states. But there are some great national groups out
there doing great things right here in the state. You've
got the two A Project, that's the organization I've founded.
You got Indiana State Rifle and Pistol Association. And I
worked very closely with those guys. We're on each other's
email distribution list. We share strategy, we get together before

(09:36):
every legislative session, we sit together at the committee. Here
again I mentioned Charlie hilltonan long term great friend of mine.
Kelly and Avon Kelly Myers here calling to the show
often also a member of the two A Project, but
co director of legislative Affairs along with Jerry Torr, recently
retired state representative, also co director of Legislative Affairs for ISRPA.

(09:59):
The eight people, good people whose hearts are in the
right place, who are doing great work, and who show up.
They're there. I know because I'm there, and I've been
going there and being there and fighting in the State
House for a damn long time. And so when you
see the folks that have fought hard and assisted in

(10:21):
drafting legislation, that's one thing I do of anybody I
just named, And I'm not trying to pat myself on
the back. It's just something that I've done and I'm
comfortable doing. I've drafted the most legislat I've drafted our
self defense immunity law that passed in twenty nineteen. I've
passed or excuse me, I drafted the expungement law relative
to our red flag cases that now allows people found

(10:44):
not dangerous to wipe that off their record. I've drafted
improvements to the guns on School Property bill. I've drafted
improvements other improvements that greatly whittled down the dramatic over
breadth that allows for dramatic misuse and abuse of the
red Flag Statute. I've drafted multiple bills that have assisted

(11:06):
in pairing that down to the way it ought to be.
I actould say multiple provisions of a bill to greatly
improve that law, which we've done. But there are people
here doing good work, and I'm a small part of
that team. But now what we have. We have the
Indiana Firearms Coalition. And if you get emails from these people,

(11:29):
they always start off with some crisis. And you know what,
NRA was doing a little bit too much of this too.
I would get email. I actually unsubscribed from a lot
of NRA's emails because I was getting emails. I say,
oh my god, there's this huge crisis. Send us money.
And with the door brothers, they're Indiana Firearms Coalition. Invariably,

(11:52):
the crises that they identify in these email are complete
false flags. They are complete red herrings. I mean I've
seen them here lately help us defeat Senate bill whatever
which would ban semi automatic weapons, or which would do
this or do that. And invariably you look at these
I'll say, hold on, what are they raising money on?

(12:13):
That basis for to fight that bill, because that bill's dead.
That bill died in committee. By the way, we're not
even in the legislative session right now. So if they
sent you some email that says, look, there's this horrible bill.
It was a bill that was filed last year and
last session, or could be this year in a session
that now that ended this spring, and it's not on

(12:38):
the table now. It may make it refiled next year,
and if it does, then we'll put the call out
to go kick its ass. But these false flag emergencies
and always end with and help us save your Second Amendment, right,
send us money, Send us money, Send us money, and listen.
I don't mind solicitations for money. I've engaged in that

(13:01):
too on behalf of the two A project. You don't
hear me talk a lot about that here, because I
don't know that people listen to the gun Guy Show
because they want to get solicited for money, other than
perhaps signed up for my classes, which I pitch on
the regular. But I don't mind so much the solicitation
of money, But it's what are you getting in return

(13:21):
for that in terms of what's being delivered to you,
in terms of the efforts on your behalf and are
they being stray with you on the reasons they're asking
for money. And that's where the Door Brothers Indiana Firearms
Coalition clearly, unquestionably are simply grifters. And listen, if I
mentioned before, if you're near a phone, you're near your computer,

(13:44):
you're not driving. Just google these guys, do your own search.
Read the articles. It's article after article after article about
what do these guys do. They do nothing in the
state houses where they have organizations, including here in Indiana.
Seeing these guys once ever in the state House, not
ever once, And I'm always there there's gun related bill,

(14:05):
I'm there. A lot of people will tell you that.
You know, they'll say, well, we send a lot of emails,
they post YouTube videos. They'll certainly attack people that they
say are selling out gun rights quote unquote. But it's
a way of causing division and the process put money

(14:26):
in their own pocket by getting people to donate to
the organization. Not believing that the other organizations or even
some of our best pro to A legislators are really
fighting for their rights. I say, well, gosh, maybe I'm
being sold out by these other people, by these other
organizations included maybe I ought to just send money to
these guys because they're the as they say, no compromise group,

(14:50):
and they'll stand.

Speaker 4 (14:50):
Up for me.

Speaker 3 (14:53):
Except PROBAB. They do is take your money and do
absolutely nothing. Then they wait to see what actually happens,
and then they swoop then take credit for it. We're
going to take a break. I'm a little past the
quarter hour. I'm gonna give you some specific examples based
on this most recent video that they posted where they're
taking specific credit for accomplishes. Accomplishments we've had it right

(15:17):
here in Indiana that they had absolutely nothing to do with.
And listen, I don't take pleasure in any of this
because pro two A groups, conservatives in general, we all
ought to be shoulder to shoulder, all ought to be
marching in lockstep. And I hated even gun owners.

Speaker 4 (15:39):
Man.

Speaker 3 (15:39):
I'll go out there on the gun related pages that's
on social media or otherwise, and gun owners always want
to attack each other. You know, somebody will post a
picture of their rifle and other people will be making
fun of their dime store optics or there, this, that
or the other thing. It's like, come on, man, we're
sharing interest here. We're on the same team. And lately,

(16:00):
you know with this overused term of rhino, well that
people over there are rhinos. Listen, I'm not immune. I've
used that term. I've used it recently, but anymore that
gets used to create infighting, not because the target of
those attacks has legitimately sold us out, but because people

(16:25):
see that a way as a way to fundraise, and
that's the distinction without ever delivering any work product or
even any effort in the process. So it pains me
to go after a group that's ostensibly fighting for your
two AA rights. But I'll tell you what, I don't
want these people in Indiana. I don't want them getting

(16:46):
your money and having them not deliver on what it
is they promise, because I'll guarantee you they don't. They
collect your money and laugh on the way to the bank.
And that's that. And just google it, do your own research.
You'll see how many times across the country, legislators other
pro two A groups. Respected groups like NSSF National Shooting

(17:06):
Sports Foundation, which represents the firearms industry, including retailers and
manufacturers and gun shops and gun ranges and instructors. The
reason I'm a member but we're taking a break. We'll
come back. I'll get it more into this discussion and
go through some of the specifics of this most recent
Door Brothers video and how completely outlandish it is in

(17:29):
terms of the attacks they make on Indiana legislators, the
attacks they make another pro two AA gun groups, and
the credit they try to claim themselves for things they
had absolutely nothing to do with. It angers me and
it's time to call them out. This is Guy Ralford
on The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WIBC.

Speaker 1 (17:56):
Second to nine on this second amendment of This is
the Gun with Guy Ralford on WYBC.

Speaker 3 (18:04):
And welcome back. I'm Guy Ralford on the Gun Guy
Show on ninety three WIBC. So we're talking about this organization,
Indiana Firearms Coalition really set up by set of brothers.
There's actually four brothers, but the two that are most
vocal you see out there on YouTube and whatnot are
the oldest Aaron doordr R and his brother Chris, and

(18:27):
they do the same thing state to state to state.
And by the way, gun rights are not their only deal.
They really got going I think during COVID because they
started launching these fundraising efforts around fighting COVID restrictions, and
then they decided that conservatives were pretty good about opening
up their checkbook or getting their credit card out, and
they decided to set up the pro life anti abortion

(18:50):
websites and organizations and they were fundraising on that basis,
and then decided to add the Second Amendment to the mix.
And okay, you know, anybody can advocate for whatever causes
they believe in, and those are all causes that I
personally believe in. The problem is, what are they returning

(19:11):
as far as return on investment based on the donations
that they receive. And there are reports out there these
people nationally received millions of dollars, which is like a
punch in the gut to think that they're really just
putting that money in their own pocket and getting rich
off other people's desires to really fight to preserve liberties

(19:34):
in this country. But in the video that kind of
set me off. The reason I'm talking about it here
on the show is they talk about why they formed
Indiana Firearms Coalition and it was formed in twenty twenty one,
and they talk about Indiana's red Flag law. And listen,
anytime we're going to talk about the red Flag law.
When I explain to people how the law works, and

(19:57):
I explained to them what is and isn't wrong with
the law, a lot of times people will misperceive that
and then mischaracterize that into believing that somehow or portraying
my discussion is that I'm somehow defending in the Indiana's
red flag law. There's no one that's been more vocal
than me in talking about the flaws and the abuse

(20:23):
associated with Indiana's red flag law. I litigate those cases.
I'm in court fighting for clients under this statute. And
I'm the only lawyer in this state who took the
statute up to the Indiana Court of Appeals arguing as

(20:43):
strongly and with as much powers of advocacy as I
could summon that it's unconstitutional. And in a two to
one decision, the Indiana Court of Appeals disagreed with me,
and the Supreme Court didn't choose to take the case.
But I argue the whole DM statute was unconstitutional law
to be set aside. So I'm not the guy who's

(21:06):
going to come into any discussion defending our red flag law.
At the same time, when people take issue with it
or talk about why it ought to be repealed. I
want to make sure if we're going to be effective
advocates for the Second Amendment, we need to do so
from a position not only of strength, but of accuracy

(21:29):
and of intellectual integracy, integrity. And by that I mean,
let's be right and let me tell you, as set
out in this video from the Door Brothers, they got
about every damn thing wrong. They clearly haven't taken the
time to even understand Indiana law and recent Indiana changes

(21:50):
or changes in Indiana law, or they're just not particularly bright,
or some combination of the of all the above. Let's
talk about the red flag law. It was passed in
two thousand and five. Indiana was the second state in
the country to pass a red flag law, after Connecticut,
and the momentum behind getting it passed two thousand and

(22:10):
five was the murder, totally senseless murder of a very
beloved Indianapolis Police Department patrolman named Timothy nicknamed Jake Laird
and everybody knew him by Jake, thirty one years old
at the time, has happened on August eighteenth, two thousand
and four, and the person who murdered Jake Laird. Officer

(22:35):
Laird was a thirty three year old guy who lived
on Deet Street down on the Near south Side named
Kenneth Charles Anderson. And Kenneth Anderson was a guy who'd
had a history of mental health problems. He was a paranoid,
skidst a fronter, and he also had a bunch of guns.

(22:56):
He'd never been involuntarily committed to a mentalist, which would
have made him ineligible to possess guns or buy guns.
And he'd never been convicted of a serious crime like
a felony that would have also prohibited him from possessing firearms.
And multiple times when he would stop taking his medication,

(23:17):
he would start getting threatening. He would threaten violence, he'd
be loud, police would be called. He had had guns,
his guns taken from him. But he would then he
start taking his medication again, he'd calm down. He'd go
down to the police station and say I want my
guns back. And at the time, there was no legal mechanism,
there was no legal way for police to say no,

(23:37):
you can't have your guns back. He wasn't a prohibited possessor,
and so they had to give him his guns back.
There his property well, on August eighteen, two thousand and four,
again he's not taking his medication. He's having a schizophrenic episode.
He ends up murdering his wife and he goes out
into the street with a se automatic SKS seven to

(24:00):
sixty two rifle. It's firing shots, screaming and yelling. Police
are called. Multiple police respond, there's a shootout, a couple
of different officers were wounded, and Patrolman Jake Lair is killed.
And the legislature in the very next session looked at
this and a lot of people and when, for all

(24:20):
the flaws of our red flag law, I understand this,
A lot of legislators said, hold on, we knew this
guy had serious mental illness, we knew he didn't reliably
take his medication, we knew he was dangerous when he
didn't take his medication. Why couldn't his guns be taken
from him? Was the thought prize. And I'm not defending
any of this. And if somebody wants to sit down

(24:41):
a debate with me whether you should have your gun
sees from you when you haven't been institutionalized and you
haven't been convicted of any crime, I know which side
of that argument I'm going to take based on purely
constitutional grounds. I'm trying to explain to you the rationale
of the legislature, and the legislature said to be a
mechanism if someone's truly dangerous. So the way the statute

(25:04):
has worked and worked since the beginning is police can
either go to and this can be based on a
report from anybody. There's another where the door brothers are confused.
Since it's been passed in two thousand and five, the
Indiana Red Flag Statute allows your neighbor could call police
this guy's crazy, he's point of gun at me. I've

(25:25):
had this case, this guy's random and raven and point
of gun to me. That a family member can call police.
Police can just observe you directly as you're out in public,
or police get called to your house for whatever reason
and you're behaving in a way that make police think
you're both dangerous and possession of a firearm. Police can
either go to a court and ask for a judge
to determine whether there's probable cause based on information supplied

(25:48):
by the police officer that you're dangerous, and if so,
the judge sign's a warrant that says yes, go seize
this person's firearm. Are in more of an emergency situation
when it's just the police who encounter person who may
be dangerous. Police can seize the firearms. Then within within
forty eight hours, they have to submit. Now it's called

(26:10):
an aff David. That's changed a little bit. They used
to be able to report still some kind of a
report to the judge saying here's why I see this
guy's guns. And a judge then reviews that for probable cause.
And if a judge says no, there's no probable cause,
they say give him his guns back. If they say yes,
there's probable cause, okay, keep the guns, and then they
set up for a hearing, which is supposed to happen

(26:30):
in fourteen days. And that's where the person has full
blown due process. Now, when people say guns can be
seized on the front end with no due process, is
that true or is that not true? That is, a
police officer can take the guns and there's no court hearing,
there's no opportunity to argue your case, no opportunity to

(26:51):
have a lawyer. That doesn't sound like due process, does it.
We'll tell you what. We're a little past bomb in
the ar I'm going to break there. We'll come back
and it is their due or is there a sufficient
new process, which is a whole separate question in the
Red Flag Law. I'll come back then and talk about
the attacks on Indiana, attacks on Indiana legislators by these idiots,
the Door Brothers, and how it's really completely not only unfounded,

(27:15):
I think it's intentionally disingenuous, purely as a grift, purely
as a scam to raise money to line their own pockets.
That's what we'll get into when we come back, says
Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WYBC.

Speaker 1 (27:33):
This show about gun rights, gun safety, and responsible gun ownership.
This is the Gun Guy with Guy Ralford on ninety
three WYPC.

Speaker 3 (27:43):
And welcome back on Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy
Show on ninety three WIBC. So, again, if anybody's just
joining us, I'm explaining how our Red Flag law, that
is a gun seizure law that allows guns to be
sees from people that are quote unquote dangerous, how it works.
And please do not take my expl for how the
statute works to be an argument by me that I'm

(28:05):
in favor of the law. That's not my point. I'm
simply explaining the way the law functions and explaining what
attacks on the law are legitimate and which ones don't
have any real legal support. And that's an important point.
If we're going to be intellectually honest about the discussion
and how we can we can either improve it or
get rid of it altogether. Let's do so on the
basis of facts and correct legal interpretation of how the

(28:29):
statute actually functions. So a policeman encounters someone who's acting
strangely threatening people waving a gun around. They take that
gun away from them, and in that moment that that
person has their gun, sees has there been any due process? No,
none whatsoever. Okay, But the police officer has to submit

(28:54):
now an affidavit to a judge who reviews that affidavit
to determine whether it establishes probable call us that the
person's dangerous, so that the officer was correct in seizing
the gun, because that's the standard for the police officer
to seize the gun to begin with probable cause to
believe dangerousness. When the judge reviews the affidavit for probable cause,

(29:18):
that's the first step in due process, not complete due process.
But consider this people, let say there's no due process.
And again I'm not defending the statute. I'm explaining how
it works. When a police officer sees you, let's say,
sees you commit an arm robbery on the sidewalking downtown Indianapolis.

(29:42):
Police officer sees you, pulls up, pulls their gun, disarms you,
puts you in the back, puts you in the back
of the police cruiser, and takes you to jail. Now,
there's a dramatic difference in that situation, because you've just
committed a serious felony and you deserve to get arrested
based on that officer observing you. However, the only point

(30:02):
I'm making is in the moment the police officer puts
you in the back of the car, in handcuffs and
takes you to jail, you've had no due process whatsoever.
So how is that constitutional if you can't be deprived
of life liberty. Well, if you're in handcuffs in the
back of a police car on the way to jail,
you've been deprived of your liberty without due process. How

(30:22):
can that possibly be Well, because we can't convene a
court session there on the sidewalk to determine whether it's
probable cause for your arrest. So the system and what's
been determined to be constitutional in the context of due
process is, yes, you go to jail, but then you
promptly have a hearing before a judge for the judge

(30:45):
to determine whether there's probable cost for you to be held,
and only if, and then this can be done in writing,
it could be done on the submission of Affidavit's very
very similar, not identical to what we're talking about with
red flagwaws. A judge then determines probably cause, aha, no
probable cause. You get set free due process. But then

(31:05):
the real point is, do you, in an a timely
basis get to have full due process, have a lawyer
to compel witnesses to testify on your behalf, confront the
witnesses against you, all the elements of due process. None
of that's immediate. It all happens eventually, and therefore that

(31:26):
process is constitutional in the due process area. The red
flag law was designed around that. No, you don't get
due process when your guns are seized by a police officer,
but a judge reviews the seizure for probable cause, just
like an arrest. No, you don't get full due process

(31:46):
at the time the judge is reviewing that affidavit. That's
just one side only. And yes, eventually it's supposed to
be happening in fourteen days unless you ask for more time.
As the person's who person whose gun was seized, you
get a hearing where you have full due process. So
for people to come out and say there's no due process,
well it's not perfect due process. But let's attack the

(32:08):
statute on legitimate basis and let's reform it and let's
cure the abuses. That's why I've been working on for
a damn long time and with a lot of success.
I wanted to lay that out and give you that
context before we get into the specifics of the Door
Brothers attack on Indiana, on Indiana legislators, on other pro

(32:29):
gun groups based on what's happened with our red flag
law in recent years. We'll get back into that discussion
here in just a moment. By the way, we have
a very short short segment. We come back. Our phone
lines are apparently down. I got producer Jack working on that.
Hopefully we can get that fixed in the next hour.
And ten minutes. But right now apparently the phone lines
are down, which happens here somewhat on the regular at WIBC.

(32:51):
Hopefully we can get that cured, and if so, I
will let you know. Right now we're taking a break.
Is this Guy Ralford on the Gun Guy Show on
ninety three WIBC.

Speaker 1 (33:03):
Is your rights, it is your responsibilities, your guns. This
is the Gun Guy with Guy Ralford on ninety three WYVC.

Speaker 3 (33:13):
So in explaining a little bit how the red flag
law works, again, I can't emphasize this enough. Do not
take that as me defending the red flag law. I
was explaining it and explaining why there's some attacks make
more sense than others, an attack that I've been making
since day one and really points to how this was
rushed through the General Assembly in two thousand and five.

Speaker 2 (33:36):
Is the horrible, horrible.

Speaker 3 (33:37):
Definition of dangerous that was in the statute. These door
Brother idiots start off their video early on saying, oh, yeah,
I was passed and there was no definition of dangerous.
It's whatever a police officer thinks it is. No, there
was a definition. It's in section one of the statute.
I'm not really sure how you missed it. There, guys,
But there was a definition, but it was just horribly overbroad.

(34:01):
The definition started off, if a person's an imminent risk
of personal injury to themselves or others. Okay, well, that
part makes a little bit of sense. Imminent risk of
personal injury to yourself for others. But then it went
on to say, or the person may be a risk
of personal injury to themselves or others in the future,
may maybe in the future. How incredibly overbroad is that?

(34:22):
And one of two things. Either they have a mental
illness is controlled by medication, but they don't reliably take
their medication, or there's documented evidence which will give rise
to reasonable belief that they have a propensity for either
violent or emotionally unstable conduct. And I asked you, I
we know what violent conduct is, You're trying to hurt somebody.
What's emotionally unstable mean? What does that mean? What is

(34:45):
emotionally unstable me? It means whatever a judge wants it
to meet. That was the original definition. That was a problem,
and that's what we needed to fix and we did.
Right now, we're taking a break. Top of the hour.
Is is Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy Show on
ninety three WYBC.

Speaker 1 (35:01):
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 it's the
Second Amendment. And this is the gun Guy a boom.

Speaker 2 (35:17):
Boom boom boom bang bang bang bang boom boom boom,
boom bang bang bom.

Speaker 1 (35:25):
Guy Ralford on ninety three WYBC, And.

Speaker 3 (35:32):
Welcome back for our number two the gun Guy Show
here on ninety three WIBC. So, I'm talking about some
scam artists, some absolute unquestionable grifters in form of the
Door Brothers who have this organization now one of several
state organizations that are popped up across the country founded

(35:53):
by these guys called Indiana Firearms Coalition, and it's a
scam group. They don't actually do anything. They send some
emails looking for money and then they post YouTube videos
claiming about their victories, but they don't actually have any victories.
What they're doing is claiming credit for what others have accomplished,
and in the process they'll criticize anybody actually involved in

(36:16):
the fight for two A rights in the various states
where they have a presence, as slimy A presence as
it may be. And we're talking about this video that
they posted here just recently, and my friends at Indiana
State Rifle and Pistol Association sent it to me and
they knew it would set me off, and of course
it did. So they're talking about why they formed the

(36:38):
Indiana Firearms or excuse me, the Indiana Firearms Coalition, and
they said, well, we did it in two thousand and
twenty one, really in reaction to the horrible Rhinos expanding
the red flag lawn in twenty nineteen and making it
much worse, and so we just felt we had to

(37:01):
do something for Indiana gun owners. Well, what actually happened
in twenty nineteen. I was explaining before the break the
top of the hour that one of the main problems
with the Red Flag Law and something and I actually
this was part of my argument for why the two
A or why the red Flag Law is unconstitutional as
it previously existed anyway, is the incredibly vague and overly

(37:28):
broad definition of dangerous because it not only, as I
said before the break, not only did it include someone
who's an imminent danger an imminent risk of personal injury
to themselves or others, but it included if they may
be a risk of personal injury to themselves or others
in the future. Maybe. And I actually had an mdphd
psychiatrist on the stand in one Red Flag hearing and

(37:49):
he was asked by a prosecutor, well, is the respondent
and that's the person whose guns were sived? Is mister
so and so a potential future risk? When the psychiatrist said, well,
everybody's a potential future risk, Boom, You've just checked that box.
But then the second box it has to be checked
under this alternative definition of dangerous is either the person

(38:10):
has a mental illness controlled by medication, but they don't
reliably take their medication, or there's documented evidence which will
give rise to a reasonable belief that they have a
propensity for a violent or emotionally unstable conduct. Now, why
did the legislature go beyond someone who's an imminent danger
and talk about someone who just may be a danger

(38:31):
in the future. Because that's as I argue to the
Court of Appeals, and I still think this was absolutely correct.
Why that's unconstitutionally vague is because it's put in judges
and at least on the street. Initially, police officers in
the position of trying to read minds. And in fact,
I made the analogy to the movie Minority Report with

(38:51):
Tom Cruise, where it was this futuristic police department and
they formed a department of pre crime and they had
these three psychics called Precogs. And the Precogs I recall,
they kind of drifted around in this sensory deprivation kind
of an environment and they and they did psychic things

(39:11):
and they predicted the future and they would come back
and they say, well, guy Rufford's going to commit a
crime three weeks from Monday and he's going to commit
this horrible murder or whatever it might be. And they'd
go arrest you before you committed the crime. And this
is all great because now it's crime prevention, right, And
of course that all breaks down and innocent people start

(39:33):
getting carted off to jail, and that's the point of
the movie. And I said, you're asking judges at a hearing.
If you say somebody may be a dangerous in the future,
may be dangerous in the future, you're asking judges to
be the Precox from the Minority Report, something they're ill
equipped to do. I don't know that a psychiatrist is

(39:54):
equipped fully to predict someone's behavior in the future. I
know for a fact they're not much less a judge.
It's not what they're trained to do. And I still
think I'm right on that argument, and respectfully disagree with
the Court of Appeals didn't throw that provision of the
statute out. But it was a huge problem, especially and
maybe a danger in the future combined with this danger

(40:20):
or excuse me, violent or emotionally unstable conduct. What's emotionally
unstable me? I made this argument many many times before
we finally got the statute improved. I started to say fixed,
and I wouldn't go that far improved in twenty nineteen.
And what's emotionally unstable? And if I'm watching a Colts
game and the quarterback throws an interception and I cuss

(40:42):
a lot and throw my pillow at the TV, my
wife would say, that's emotionally unstable. Do I have a
propensity for emotionally unstable conduct? And if so, since I
may be a risk of personal injury in the future,
since everyone's a potential risk, then boom, I can have
my guns taken away from me. That's not okay, especially

(41:04):
going back to the baseline position, if should anyone ever
have their guns taken from them and they've not committed
any crime, which is the fundamental attack on red flag laws.
And so in twenty nineteen, a couple of things were
happening together. And by the way, you need to know
these facts to fully understand how completely off base and

(41:26):
dishonest the Door Brothers are in their attack on legislators
who were involved in this process or gun rights groups
that were were not involved in this process. Approaching twenty nineteen,
a number of things were going on. I was going
to legislators saying, we got to fix this vague statute

(41:47):
of dangers. You're having people lose red flagcses and have
their constitutional rights destroyed in the context of the Second Amendment. Anyway,
who are truly not dangerous. It's because judges were rely
on this emotionally unstable business. When emotionally unstable doesn't mean
they're going to hurt anybody, and it certainly doesn't mean

(42:08):
they're going to use a gun to hurt anybody. Why
are we taking constitutional rights away from people on that basis?
Makes no sense. At the same time, on the other
side of the equation, a lot of Republican lawmakers were
getting approached by law enforcement, and they also got approached
by people I deeply, deeply respect. That's the parents of

(42:31):
j Claired and and and I met Michael Laird on
multiple occasions, and his wife he always calls missus l
so I can never remember her first name, and I
apologize for that if they listen to this or get
wind of it. But Michael Laired a true gentleman. And
he's obviously very very very pro cop, being the father

(42:56):
of a murdered police officer, but he's he's also pro
two W A A. He's not an anti gunzela or
a gun grabber or any other of the names you
want to want to put on people who are trying
to deprive people of their constitutional rights. That's not who
he is. But police officers, including the Lairds, realized that

(43:19):
there was, from their perspective anyway, a hole in the
red Flag statue, which is that, yes, if you're found
to be dangerous, you get your full due process and
you bring your own lawyer in, you present your own arguments,
present your own evidence, but the judge rules against you
and finds you to be dangerous under the law as
it existed before twenty nineteen. You could say okay, which

(43:41):
meant that the police would keep the guns they seized
from you. But you could walk right out of the courthouse,
walk across the street to a gun store and buy
another gun, and it was nothing that prohibited you from
doing that because you weren't a quote unquote prohibitive possessor
by being found to be dangerous under state or federal law.
And listen, have I ever seen cases where people were

(44:03):
legitimately dangerous? Yes, I have seen that case. Doesn't mean
I'm supporting the red flag law. I'm just telling you
there are people out there who are truly dangerous. And
so a lot of momentums started building up in the
General Assembly to put in a penalty for buying a gun,
or acquiring a gun, or even possessing a gun after

(44:25):
you've been found to be dangerous. And I got consulted
on this by several different lawmakers, including Donna Shibiley, who
was really in the forefront and working with the lairds
on this issue of this whole of where yeah, you
can be found to be dangerous, but you can just
go out and buy another gun. And I said, well, listen,

(44:47):
I'll get involved in this I'm not going to advocate
for the change you want to make because that's expanding
the red flag law and that's not something I'm going
to support. But if you think there's overwhelming support for that,
I said, I'll tell you right now. There are many
other things in this statute that are horribly flawed and
we need to fix. And the number one thing is
this ridiculously overly broad definition of dangerous, including this emotionally

(45:10):
unstable bs. And I was talking to Representative Shibly, who
by the way, was my representative at the time because
her district covered Scienceville, where I live no longer does
and she didn't run for reelection. But and she goes, well, guy,
emotionally unstable. Where you know, I think the rest legilature
was trying to reach people that are suicidal because we

(45:32):
want to be able to to keep people safe who
are suicidal by by separating them from their guns. And
I said, well, then say suicidal. That's easy because I
can in court, I can prove or present evidence on
whether somebody is suicidal or not. Have they tried to
kill themselves no, and they talked about killing themselves.

Speaker 2 (45:52):
No.

Speaker 3 (45:52):
Have they locked themselves in the bathroom with a gun
to their head. No, they're not suicidal. I win give
them his guns back. Violent. Yes, he tried to hurt somebody. No,
he's not violent. So violent or suicidal conduct makes some sense.
And by the way, on this may be a danger
in the future, that's not based on any evidence. That's

(46:14):
just speculation. So we changed that to according to the
bill that I helped or at least I contributed to
in twenty nineteen, make it at least probable they will
be a danger. And why was that maybe a danger
in the future in there at all? Kenneth Anderson the
crazy guy who murdered Ja Laird. He was a paranoid

(46:34):
schizophrenic who didn't take his medication, so they but he
had documented evidence that he'd been dangerous in the past
and threatening hadn't committed a crime or at least been
convicted of a crime. So they wrote this may be
a danger in the future thing specifically around the facts
of the Laired case and Kenneth Anderson's owned conduct prior
to the murder of Officer Laird. And I get that,

(46:57):
I understand their motivation, but they wrote a ridiculous, overly
brought in my view, as I argued unconstitutional statute in
the process, so we changed that to say it's probable
they will be a danger in the future.

Speaker 4 (47:09):
Ah.

Speaker 3 (47:09):
Now that takes some evidence based on what and it
has to be clear and convincing evidence. By the way,
now we've firmed up this definition, I'll tell you right now,
I have won a good at least a dozen Red
Flag cases because we firmed up that definition of dangerous.
That was a huge, huge, huge improvement to that bill,

(47:30):
and we built in several other improvements. Now instead of
police necessarily holding onto your gun while you're fighting over
whether your gun should have been seized under the Red
Flag law, now you can have them be held by
a quote unquote responsible person, your buddy with the gun safe,
a gun store. You know somebody owns a gun store.
Hey man, can you hold my guns while I'm going
through this red flag thing. Sure, they signed affidavit that says,

(47:53):
I guy a secure place to store them, and I
won't give them back until the person's found it not
be dangerous. Now you can have your guns not stored
in a barrel in the damp basement of the city
County building in the impd property room, but held in
a way, they won't be damaged. We build in if
they are damaged because they're not stored responsibly by the police,

(48:16):
are handled responsibly. The police departments is now liable for that.
They have to write you a check and compensate you
for that. That's an improvement we made. In twenty nineteen,
there were some departments across the country that were engraving
either the receiver or the barrel of a gun, engraving
it with the cause number of the red flagcase to
identify that gun for the red flatcase. I'll tell you

(48:37):
what I've got some I don't have any real, real
expensive guns, but I've got some nice guns. You engrave
the barrel of my gun with a hand engraver like
some of these departments were doing. Hell no, we said
it's illegal to do that, and several other significant improvements.

(48:57):
And what we were bargaining with, especially to get this
ridiculous definition of dangerous improved, was the momentum that was
already behind the amendment of the statute to include making
someone who's been found to be dangerous a prohibited possessor.
And listen, that train was going to leave the station.
I talked to a lot of different legislators and said, yeah, man,

(49:19):
I've heard from a lot of cops on this, if
you know a lot of other people in the community,
this is something we got to fix in this statute.
And I said, well, hold on, before you do that,
let's fix some things on the other side of the
ledger that are really wrong with the statute from a
gun owner's perspective. And we ended up getting a ton done,
including the dramatic improvement of the definition of dangerous. So

(49:43):
that's what's happened in two thousand, that's what actually happened
in twenty nineteen. What did the Door Brothers say about
all that? Why did they say they founded Indiana Firearms
Coalition because gun owners were getting sold down the river
by existing organizations based on the amendment of the Red
Flags tab shoot in twenty nineteen. The amendments I just
described to you is the context. That's what we'll get

(50:04):
into when we come back. Right now, we're taking a break.
This is Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy Show on
ninety three WIBC.

Speaker 1 (50:16):
Now you got a gun guy, Guy Ralford on ninety
three WYPC.

Speaker 3 (50:23):
Welcome back. I'm Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy Show
on ninety three WIBC training out the Indiana Firearm Coalition,
and again, I hate it when gun rights groups turn
on each other, but these guys are just griffers and frauds,
and I really want to expose them for what they are.
A lot of other people have seriously just google it
Door Brothers two A whatever you want to call it,

(50:46):
dal r R and it did a lot of different articles.
By the way, my friend Chris Lee at the National
Shooting Sports Foundation wrote a great article in Shooting Sports
that talks about these guys and really exposes them. So
in the same video talking about of course, they went
after Chris personally posted a picture of him with hunting
gear on holding a beautiful pheasant up, and they ridiculed

(51:08):
him for, you know, being a false firearm enthusiast because
he had you know, quote unquote new hunting equipment on
and all that was just bus I know Chris, I've
known him for years. He's been a long time hunter
his whole life and a true advocate for Second Amendment rights.
And it just shows you how idiotic the attacks these
people make on people really can be. By the way

(51:30):
they went after Chris, by the way, I'm fully expecting
something along the lines coming after me. Hey, take your
best shot. But their position in this video is they
formed the Indiana Firearms Coalition because of the horrible rhinos
and backstabbers that not only stood by while the red
Flag statue was passed in two thousand and five, but

(51:52):
then stepped up and actually made it much much worse
in twenty nineteen. And then they said, boy, we just
can't let this spread. And this is going to enfluce
in so other states, and it allows lawmakers in other
states to say, wow, if red state like Indiana can
pass this horrible red flag law, that we should be
able to do it here. So they need to step
up and save us from what's going on in the
Indiana General Assembly. And so they formed the Indiana Firearms

(52:17):
Coalition in twenty nineteen or twenty twenty one. Rather and listen,
they're just wrong about the statute. In twenty nineteen, we
dramatically improved the statute. I was right in the middle
of the process. I was the one fighting to fix
the definition of dangerous and we got that done. And again,
there are people right now that still have their gun
rights because we took out this ridiculous emotionally unstable and

(52:40):
maybe a danger in the future, but now there has
to be real evidence of dangerousness or including being suicidal,
and people will win cases for generations based on those improvements.
That wasn't selling anybody down the river. That wasn't turning
our backs on gun owners. That was fighting the fight,
as participating in the process, being at the table. I
know a lot of this was around my table in

(53:02):
my office in Carnibal Well, meeting legislators, going here's how
we can improve this thing that needs to be improved.
And yes, they added criminal penalties to say, if you
buy a gun or possessed gun after you're found to
be dangerous, then now that's a mist By the way,
they wanted to make it a felony, and I participated
in discussions where we talked him into reducing it only

(53:22):
to a misdemeanor. It's a felony. If you provide a
gun to someone knowing they've been determined to be dangerous,
you yourself only a misdemeanor. So we held that down.
But yes, you could say that was an expansion of
the red flag statute. That's fair, but it was more
than counterbalanced by the dramatic improvements we made in it,
and that's helping a lot of people. I know because

(53:44):
I handle the cases on the ground in the courtroom.
And with that, I'll tell you what. Let's go to
the phone lines because Anthony has called in to I
believe talking about the Door Brothers as well. Anthony, Welcome
to the Gun Guy Show.

Speaker 4 (53:58):
Yeah, good evening. I'm glad you stepped up to talk
about these grifters. Uh. I want something that you haven't
mentioned yet.

Speaker 3 (54:07):
Uh.

Speaker 4 (54:08):
And they do this with every single one of their
headquarters though, what seventeen different headquarters bet.

Speaker 3 (54:13):
Yeah, they're they're ups box stores, Yeah, the.

Speaker 4 (54:17):
UPS Mail and Parcel drop box. Yeah, Washington Street in Indianapolis, Yeah,
I know, and every single one. The other thing is
is that you know these guys are going after kind
of you tangently. But some of the guys in the
Indiana General Assembly who get no credit from them for
doing stuff like Ben Smaaltz.

Speaker 3 (54:40):
There, they went after Ben in this same video. They said, Oh, well,
we're gonna primary Ben Smalltz and that's going to put
the fear of God in him because we're gonna, we're gonna,
we're gonna fund his opponent Ben Smallts isn't losing any
primary anytime soon, certainly not because of the Door Brothers.

Speaker 4 (54:57):
Yeah, you and Jim Lucas did the Kisney's law. Yeah
you know, where were these guys, you know, cricketing?

Speaker 3 (55:04):
Well, exactly, and listen, Anthey, thanks so much for your call.
I've never seen these guys in the state House. And listen.
Aaron dor in particular, he's kind of he's the older one,
he's the most vocal. I think he says he brags
about being so involved in the legislative process. He's a
noticeable guy. He's a great, big, heavy guy, balding. Hey,
don't put that. I don't hold that against him. But

(55:24):
he's got these big dark circles under his eyes. He
just looks as shady as he really is. He's not
a guy you're gonna miss walking around the hallways of
the state House, much less showing up in a a
in a committee hearing somewhere. He's never ever shown up
in support of a bill. I've seen a couple of pictures.
In fact, I've seen articles from other states where he

(55:45):
was made fun of and ridiculed because he showed up
with a tripod to take a picture of himself in
the state House pose for the picture, took the tripod
down and the left, and they were in the middle
of the legislative session. His only involvement was just to
catch a picture of himself in the state House before
we ran out the door. Let's go back to the
phone lines and Kelly and Avon, my buddy has called.

Speaker 5 (56:06):
Hey, Kelly, Hey guy, how are you doing.

Speaker 3 (56:09):
I'm all right, get myself a little riled up here.

Speaker 6 (56:12):
Me too.

Speaker 5 (56:13):
I also wasted thirty eight minutes and fourteen seconds of
my life yesterday watching watching that video. I'll tell you what, though,
Indiana gun Owners caught some actual hate from the oldest
door brother there. I kind of view that as street
cred for Indiana gun Owners.

Speaker 3 (56:31):
Which, yeah, you know, and if you don't know about that, yeah,
people don't know about that. It's Indiana Gun Owners dot Com,
affectionately known as NGO, and I'm a member. I just
posted a little bit on there. I don't post here
as much as they used to, but in goes a
great resource. There's a ton of different forums and topics
you can select from, including the legislative legislating the Second Amendment,

(56:54):
which is one that I look at often and contribute
to on occasion, and as does Kelly. But but now
for him to come around and go after Ingo, I
mean the largest forum online for gun owners in Indiana
after he's formed Indiana Firearms Coalition. That doesn't seem to
be Does it seem to be a very productive enterprise
for him in my mind?

Speaker 6 (57:12):
Kelly, Well, you know we were out in front in
twenty nineteen identifying them as grifters and scam artists, so
that might be why he said we attacked them. But
if he would have hung around a little more, he
would see that sub forum you mentioned the legislation of
the Second Amendment, where I mean members here are very

(57:33):
active in this, not only legislation here in Indiana but
around the country well and ego members of the people
stepping up when there needs to be phone calls and
emails and even even old fashioned snail mail to our
representatives to let them know.

Speaker 4 (57:49):
Where out here.

Speaker 3 (57:50):
You bet, you bet well. Ingo does a great service.
I'm a fan of the forum. It's like any online forum.
You can run into a knucklehead here or there, but
for the most part it's really I think well done,
well moderated, and very very useful for the Indiana Gun
Owner tell you what, let's call it there, let's take
a break, we come back. I'm gonna go more through
some of the horrible attacks again on other organizations, on Ingo,

(58:14):
the Indiana Gun Owners Forum, on other gun rights organizations.
But and then, and what really kind of set me
off and the reason I decided to talk about these
grifters on the show tonight is they started taking credit
for things that they had absolutely nothing to do with
and a lot of which I was directly involved in.

(58:34):
That sets me off. You set me off like that,
I'm gonna call it, especially right here on the Gun
Guy Show. And with that, let's take a break. This
is Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy Show on ninety
three WIBC.

Speaker 1 (58:51):
He's a Second Amendment attorney, he's an NRA certified firearms instructor.
He's the Gun Guy, Guy RALFORDYPC.

Speaker 3 (59:02):
And welcome back. I'm Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy
Show in ninety three wibc's talking about the Indiana Firearms Coalition. Unfortunately,
some grifters, scam artists among us, trying to get your
contributions and in the process virtually nothing for gun owners.
In Indiana and then try to take credit for the

(59:24):
hard work and success of others, which is setting a
lot of us off who are actually involved in the fight.
And so it's time to call them out. And again
there's a great thread on ingo Indiana gun Owners. It's
Indiana gun Owners dot Com under legislating the Second Amendment,
and it just lays it out. Even Kelly Navon, who

(59:46):
just called even has timestamps on one post here that
talks about the different topics these guys get into and
how completely off base they are. But with that something
that got me, so they said, okay, Well, in response
to all the rhinos and the backstabbers, you know, expanding
the red Flag law in twenty nineteen. Now, we dramatically

(01:00:08):
improved the red Flag Law in twenty nineteen in ways
I went through. That's when we formed the Indiana Firearms Coalition.
And boy, it's a good thing we did that. We
formed it in twenty twenty one in reaction to what
happened in twenty nineteen. And by the way, if you
formed Indiana Firearms Coalition in twenty twenty one, that means

(01:00:32):
you were formed during the fight for constitutional care. Probably
the biggest and again, there are others out there. The
rest of the preemption bill is you know, prevents local
governments from regulating firearms, is huge, huge, huge huge. The

(01:00:53):
self defense Immunity bill that I wrote and we passed
twenty nineteen is also big. But I don't have any
problems saying constitutional carries the biggest pro two way achievement
we've achieved here in Indiana, and it was a ten
year fight to get it done, and I was involved
all ten years. Well, if Indian a Firearms Coalition was
formed at twenty twenty one, that means they were they

(01:01:14):
were formed, They were supposedly fighting for two A rights
in Indiana in twenty twenty one. Where were they in
twenty twenty two when we finally got it passed. For
all the hearings, all the conversations in the hallway, all
the strategy sessions, all the meetings with legislators, Where was

(01:01:35):
Where was Aaron Dor? Where was Chris Dorr? Where were
the other two door brothers? They weren't in the State House,
I know because I was there. Never testified in the
committee hearing ever. Once at one point they show a
picture of somebody testifying in one of the committee rooms
in Indiana, and Aaron Dorr goes, yeah, you know, some
of these Midwest courthouses or state houses are not great.

(01:01:55):
You know, look at this conference room. Yeah, it's in
the basement. I've testified in that particular room dozens of times.
And I'm going I've never seen you there. You're making
it sound like you've been there.

Speaker 4 (01:02:07):
I don't know.

Speaker 3 (01:02:07):
You may have stopped buying, taken a picture. You've never
shown up for any significant event. Hey, you sure's hell
weren't involved in the fight for constitutional carry when we
finally got it passed in twenty twenty two. I'm sure
you want to take credit for it. But then in
the video they go on to say, boy, sure is
a good thing that we're around here in Indiana, because
in twenty twenty three, they attempted to expand the red
flag law again, and we snuffed it out. We stepped

(01:02:32):
up and headed it off, and we got our email
campaign out, and we sent text messages to legislators and
we got involved, and we snuffed out another attempt to
expand the red flag law on twenty twenty three. Well
what are we talking about. Yeah, there was a horrible
attempt to expand the red Flag Law on twenty twenty three,
and what it was, it was a bill. The worst

(01:02:53):
thing were several bad things about it, but the worst
thing about it it would have made you a prohibited
possessor immediately upon a judge finding probable cause to believe
that you're dangerous, or a judge issuing a warrant based
on probable cause to seize fire arms from you based
on probable cause that you're dangerous. Now, at this point,

(01:03:17):
you've had no due process other than the judge reviewing
and essentially an application. It's an affid David about establishing
probable costs, but you haven't had your own day in
court yet. And in that sense, to make you a
prohibited possessor, you've lost your Second Amendment rights. You cannot

(01:03:38):
go into a gun store and buy a gun. You're
a prohibitive possessor, just like a felon when you haven't
had a court hearing yet. And we said, oh, hell no.
But the prosecutor's office and several police departments around the
country we're saying, oh, we need this because you know,
these people still have access to guns before they have
their hearing, and these things can stretch out for a

(01:03:58):
while if they ask for more time before they're hearing,
and we're worried, you know, they're going to go out
and commit crimes or hurt people in the process in
the interim, So we need him declared prohibited possessors and
make it illegal for them to have a gun before
their day in court where they get to come in
and present their own evidence and have a lawyer represent
them and have all the other elements to do process.

(01:04:21):
And that was a bill filed in the Senate and
it was assigned to Aaron Freeman's committee. Senator Aaron Freeman,
chairman of the Courts and Criminal Code Committee in the Senate.
And Aaron listen, Aaron, I always give him credit. In
twenty twenty two during constitutional carry, I think he saved
us on constitutional carry in the Senate and he was

(01:04:43):
just a rock stars and I always get will and
give him credit for that. And he's been very solid
on two A issues in the past. But Aaron was
and Aaron you know, has a lot of former connections
to law enforcement himself, and it's always considered very pro
law enforcement in addition to being pro two way, and yes,
you can be both. I put myself in the same category,

(01:05:05):
but he's getting pressure from the Prosecutors Association and police
departments to say, yeah, we ought to make people prohibited
possessors before the hearing, but oh, by the way, when
they get their hearing, and if they're not shown to
be dangerous at that point, then okay, then that prohibition
gets lifted. And we actually had a meeting and it
was Senator Chairman Aaron Freeman and me and three members

(01:05:29):
of the Indiana Prosecutors Association who were pushing for the bill,
and I was there on the pro two A side,
and the prosecutors were pushing the bill, and we had
a discussion and I talked about how I would never,
could never support a bill that would make people a
prohibited possessor before they ever had their day in court
to present their own evidence. And I talked about all

(01:05:50):
the cases I've won. They said, well, you got to
understand these people are going to lose eventually. I mean,
there's a reason the judge found probable cause. And I'd
say I'm batting about eight eighty on winning these things
in terms of I win most of them. And that's
not because I'm a great lawyer. It's because I take
cases I believe we should win and a person's not dangerous,

(01:06:12):
and I said, we're gonna make those people prohibit a
possessor before their day in court. Hell no, that's and
to me, I will litigate that. I will take that
up and I will I will win that on due
process crowns in the Court of Appeals of the Indiana
Supreme Court or the US Supreme Court. I will litigate
this issue, and I believe I will win it. And
I wasn't disrespectful to anybody, and the prosecutors were all

(01:06:33):
very respectful as well, and we had a nice professional conversation.
But the end of the day, Senator Freeman said, I
don't believe this bill should move forward in its current
form for the reasons that we've discussed here, meaning the
reasons I discussed there. And so that bill died in committee,
didn't get a hearing. And in this video the door
brothers after knowing that history myself, I mean, having known

(01:06:58):
about that meeting and and and how Senator Aaron Freeman
killed it because of the right reasons, because he's a
solid senator and I think a great representative of Indiana
citizens in the Indiana and General Assembly. He made the
right decision. And yes, I had a lot of input
on that point, and I think I was persuasive in
the process. But the Door Brothers said, yeah, we launched

(01:07:21):
our campaign because we had stepped in and gotten involved
in Indiana. And boy, it's a good thing we did,
because we snuffed out this bill in twenty twenty three,
and they took all the credit. I never heard from
these people, I never saw them. I never talked to
any legislators that had ever heard from them. They did
nothing to achieve that result in twenty twenty three, and
that they took all the credit. Not okay with that,

(01:07:45):
but get this and we'll wrap up when we come
back on this point again. A short segment the bill
I wrote last year to where if people are found
to not be dangerous or no longer be dangerous, and
they can now spunge that off their public record so
they don't lose jobs lose relationships. I wrote that I
fought for it in the General Assembly. Ben Smaaltz introduced it.

(01:08:08):
Guess who to credit for that bill as well? Yeah,
you guessed it. The slime balls at Indiana Firearms Coalition.
Right now, we're taking a break. This is guy Ralford
on The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WYBC, Second.

Speaker 1 (01:08:26):
To none on this second amendment. This is the Gun
Guy with Guy Ralford on ninety three WYBC.

Speaker 3 (01:08:34):
So this legislative session, I realized and there's something I'd
been talking to legislators about before. In fact, I had
a bill I wanted to get introduced last year in
twenty twenty four. Didn't get that done until this year.
But it was a bill that addressed another huge problem
with red flag, which is that if someone accuses you

(01:08:56):
of being dangerous and authorities begin a person against you,
even if you win, that stays on your criminal history.
It's not even a criminal proceeding. It's a civil proceeding.
But just like traffic tickets and whatnot, you go to
my case, for instance, I use a separate system called
dockspop that a lot of lawyers use, but I use

(01:09:19):
the lawyer's version of my case as well, and you
can you can sign on there, just the publicly accessible
version of the site and put in somebody's name and
come up with their whole background. You can see civil
cases filed against them, you can see criminal cases, but
you'd also see red flat cases and in a criminal case.

(01:09:40):
If you're found not guilty or a case is dismissed,
that is immediately expunged. Even if you're found guilty, you
can go back for a lot of crimes, not all.
This is what I talk about when I'm plugging expungements.
You can go back and expunge criminal conviction for a
lot of convictions. But because a red flag proceeding was

(01:10:03):
civil and not criminal, there was no way to expunge
that off your record. So people were being found to
be not dangerous, but then going and applying for a
job and they run it and they go, well, wow,
what's this red flagcase where you had gun sees from you?
We don't think we want you working for this company.
And it was costing people relationships and volunteer opportunities. Had
lady who wasn't allowed to teach her to coach her

(01:10:26):
daughter's softball team, said well, you know, we see you
had this red flat case. Yeah, but I won. Well,
we're not comfortable with that. And so last year I
wrote a bill because I saw the need in my
cases with my clients, so we ought to be able
to clean this off people's records that shouldn't influence them
after they win. So I wrote that bill and Ben

(01:10:49):
s Maltz was the author in the House, sailed through
committee unanimously. Get this. It passed unanimously on the floor
of the House, went over to the Senate, passed unanimously committee.
Out of that, I testified both places and then passed
unanimously on the floor of the Senate. There you go,
we win. It passes now the law Guess who took

(01:11:11):
credit for that in their video the Door Brothers. They said,
because the legislators were so afraid of them, they felt
the need to do something on red Flag, had to
appease them and passed my expungement statue. That's the scumbag
these people are. That's this week's show. Hope you enjoyed it.
Come back next week, and I always remember, be safe

(01:11:32):
and shoot straight.