The Gun Guy - Full Show - 11/08/2025

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
And good afternoon, and welcome to the Gun Guy Show
here on ninety three w ib C. We're glad you're
with us a lot to talk about. One thing that
a lot of folks have contacted me about that I
will not be discussing with any specificity at all or
directly is the shooting in Whitestown. And it was a
horrible tragedy. As anyone knows who's familiar with the process

(00:25):
and familiar with the case, there is no case this
open investigation, but there was a tragic shooting. It really
looked like due to mistake, a cleaning crew went to
the wrong house's And that's about as much as I'm
going to say about it. Because I've been hired by
a party involved due to the obvious self defense issues

(00:49):
there and to assist them through that investigation. I've talked
to the Boone County Prosecutor and been in contact with
Whitestown Police and they are doing I think a very
esational and thorough investigation, and we'll see where that goes.
But in the meantime, I'm not going to be talking
about that case on the radio. If anybody has questions

(01:09):
about that case, I'm going to have to say I'm sorry,
I can't discuss it. I think to be a professional,
that's the only option. If somebody has general questions about
the law of self defense and how the law of
self defense operates in Indiana, I'm happy to answer those
generic questions, not with application to that specific shooting. And

(01:32):
I've been talking about those issues for a generation or more.
That's what I teach in my classes. So the law
is the law, and I'm happy to discuss those issues.
So if you have questions about the law of self defense,
you have questions about the castle doctrine, our standard ground law,
what's the difference. What makes Indiana's law a castle doctrine

(01:53):
or a standard ground law. If you just want to
know how the law operates in this area, hypothetically or generically, Hey,
that's fair game. I've been discussing those issues and teaching
those issues for a long long time, So give us
a call, join the discussion. We really do want to
take your calls throughout the show as we always do
Area code three one seven ninety three ninety three, and

(02:14):
you will actually if you call in here during this show,
you will get to talk to celebrity guest producer Kylon
tally is Is is producing the show tonight. Producer Jack
has gone on to a career outside WIBC, and so
we were lucky enough to uh to actually score again
guest celebrity producer Kylon. Tell you can see Kylon in

(02:36):
productions over at Indiana Repertory Theater at other neighborhood theaters
around Indianapolis. She is an accomplished actress and uh and
we love having her here producing the show. So Kylin,
thanks so much for being here.

Speaker 2 (02:48):
I appreciate it. Out of all of the shows that
I'm constantly producing on this station, it's honored to be here.

Speaker 1 (02:53):
See there you go. That's why we like Kylon right there,
But give us a call join the discussion. Three one
seven two three nine ninety three. Well, there's a lot
going on in front of the Supreme Court. In fact,
the Supreme Court has agreed to take the Hermiani case,
and you've heard me talk about that. That is a
case involving a person who was ostensibly prohibited from possessing

(03:20):
firearms by federal law because he was a quote unquote
user of or addicted to illegal drugs, specifically marijuana. And
we'll see where that goes and what the Supreme Court
does with that. But in the meantime, there are several
other cases that the Supreme Court is considering and may

(03:43):
very likely take, and it's going to be really interesting
to see what they do in terms of those cases.
And some of them are I think cases that the
Supreme Court absolutely positively should take. These are issues that
need to be considered, things like a so called high
capacity magazine ban, things like Florida's relatively new law while

(04:07):
they passed it after the Parkland shooting at Marjorie Stoneman
Douglas High School, but that no one under twenty one
can buy any firearm whatsoever long gun included rifle shotguns.
Federal law, of course, prohibits those under twenty one from
purchasing a handgun, and that law at the federal level

(04:28):
is also being challenged in a case that the Supreme
Court is considering. In e fact, each of those cases
is going to be considered in committee that in conference
they call it at the Supreme Court. So how does
that work? So when a case is resolved at a
lower court level, usually by the highest court of a state,

(04:49):
like the Florida Supreme Court. In the case of the
ban on under twenty one year olds not being able
to purchase a firearm at Florida or in a federal
appeals court, like happened in the federal case involving the
federal law that says you can't buy a handgun if
you're under twenty one. If someone doesn't like that result,

(05:12):
a loser at that level can file what's called a
petition for serciarrari in the Supreme Court. A lot of
times we just abbreviate that and call it a petition
for cert and the Supreme Court then considers whether it
will take that case. And what's really interesting I've always
found this fascinating is the Supreme Court applies what they
call the rule of four. What is the rule of four?

(05:34):
You will not find this in the Constitution, you will
not find it in a federal statute anywhere. You won't
find it anywhere other than the habit and custom of
the Supreme Court, which goes back a couple or or
it goes back one hundred or a couple of hundred years,
which is that if four justices of the Supreme Court
out of the nine, so it's not even a majority,

(05:57):
want to hear a case where for cert has been filed.
Then the Supreme Court takes the case and they grant
CIRCIARRAI that doesn't indicate necessarily what they're going to do
with the case. A lot of times people think, well,
if they're okay with a result below, they'll just denied
cert and so if they take it, they're more than
likely to reverse. I do not think that's the case.

(06:17):
I just think a lot of times there's a difference
among circuit courts. So if you have a four circuit
ruling one way in the ninth circuit ruling another way,
the Supreme Court feels the need to resolve that disparity
in the rulings of the different circuit court of appeals,
and so it will resolve that. It may resolve it

(06:38):
by affirming whatever the lower court did with it in
the case that's specifically being appealed to the Supreme Court.
So I don't know that you can necessarily draw any
conclusions when the Supreme Court takes a case. Sometimes when
they don't take a case, I think it's not necessarily
because they don't have four people that want to hear it.

(07:00):
For justices that want to hear it. I think it
sometimes they don't take a case because the justices that
think the lower court case should be overturned don't necessarily
think they have the votes, that is, that fifth justice
to reach the result they want. So even though we
may have four that really want to overturn the result

(07:20):
in the lower court, they won't get to four. They
won't get four up votes because they don't think they
have a fifth necessarily. Now, with a more conservative court here,
with the Trump appointees being confirmed over the recent years,
I think that's become less of an issue, which is
why you see the Supreme Court taking more Second Amendment cases.

(07:43):
And they took the Bruin case, for instance, and that
dramatically changed the way Second Amendment issues are resolved in
courts all across country. And they've taken others since then
as well, including the Harmonic case, which I discussed. So
we'll see where these go. But I'm really interested and
excited to see what the Supreme Court does with these.

(08:05):
I would love for them, for instance, to take the
case it says if you're somewhere between eighteen and twenty,
you can't buy a handgun. It makes no sense to me.
For instance, applied here in Indiana, how old do you
have to be to get an Indiana licensed to carry handgun?
Even though you don't necessarily have to have a license
to carry since we've passed constitutional carry back in twenty

(08:28):
twenty two, it's still a very good idea to have
a license. In fact, you know what, after this next break,
I'll go into some of the reasons why it's still
a really good idea to have a license, one in
particular that also deals with the application of federal law.
But how old do you have to be to get
a license? Eighteen? How old do you have to be
to carry a handgun concealed or openly under constitutional carry? Eighteen?

(08:53):
How old do you have to be to buy a
gun from a private individual? How old does a buyer
have to be for you to legally sell a gun
too that private individual? Eighteen? And at federal law says
they can't go into a gun store and buy their
own gun from the gun store, that the federal firearms licensee,
that is, that licensed dealer can lose their license and

(09:17):
they're actually violating federal law. That the nineteen or twenty
year old can go to prison when they can walk
out into the parking lot and legally buy a gun
from a private individual. Does that make any damn sense?
Of course it doesn't. And the reason you hear often,
and you've heard it from me and you hear it
from others, which is, if you can serve in the military,

(09:38):
if you can walk down and volunteer into the armed services,
and someone's going to hand you an M four select
fire automatic weapon, or teach you to drive a tank,
or operate an artillery unit, or operate a drone and
handle any number of high tech lethal weapons for the

(10:01):
United States and the service of your country. And that's
totally okay, and we're all okay with that. In fact,
we praise those people rightfully so and thank them for
their service and putting themselves in harm's way. And then
they come home and if they're not twenty one yet,
having just been driving a tank in the military, as
I say, an artillery unit, they can't walk in their

(10:23):
local gun store and buy a handgun. Come on. So
the Supreme Court taking that case, I think would be
a wonderful thing, and overturning that law would be a
wonderful thing as well. The Hamani case on a marijuana user,
do I think marijuana users should be prohibited from possessing firearms,
absolutely not. And listen, marijuana use is not a high

(10:48):
priority issue for me. I learned in college marijuana and
I told it along. I want to go crill up
in a funeral position and go to sleep, not talk
to anybody. And I learned that early on. And so
that issue in particularly doesn't really mean much to me.
I can tell you, having spent many years doing my

(11:10):
children's laundry, it is an issue for a couple of
my kids. I learned that if you know what a
lot about your kids doing laundry, there's no doubt about that.
But notwithstanding the fact that I don't have any personal
interest in the legalization of marijuana as far as personally,
you know how many veterans I've talked to they say

(11:32):
it helps them tremendously with PTSD. The man of people
have to talk to you, including veterans that say it
helps them with pain management. I've got a couple of buddies,
separate and apart from military service, that just have stomach issues,
gastru intestional issues, and they say marijuana use settles their
stomach down. I'm not sure I understand the physics or

(11:53):
the physiology is a better word for that, but hey,
if it works for them, so be it. Even if
it's a plus. If it works for them, so be it.
Should any of those people, including the veterans for crying
out loud, that suffered PTSD in the service of their country,
having put themselves in harms way, should they then come home?
And because they've decided and in many states in consultation

(12:15):
with their doctor, to use marijuana for remedial purposes, they
should lose their Second Amendment rights. They just put themselves
in a harm way, harm's way defending your constitutional rights
and my constitutional rights, our freedom, our way of living.
Then they come home and they can't exercise their own
constitutional rights under the Second Amendment. That makes any sense

(12:37):
to you, of course it does not. So I think
the Supreme Court will do the right thing as to marijuana,
use it and listen, even though I'm not a marijuana user,
because again, it doesn't get along with me. I haven't
met very many beers I haven't liked. So am I
a beer drinker? You bet it do? I think I
should be prohibited from possessing a firearm consid drink beer.

(12:59):
Of course, not at the same time. If somebody, let's
say somebody's driving home and I happen to be in
front of them on the interstate, they're driving up behind me.
If I had my choice between that person having had
ten beers in the last hour or smoked a couple
of joints, which do you think I'd choose? I'll take

(13:21):
the joints all day long. You know, you don't hear
that many people. I'm sure it happens. Again, I don't
run in these circles. How many people go out and
crash their car because they smoked a joint. I don't
know that that happens a lot compared certainly to drunk drivers.
Even though I'm an alcohol user and not a marijuana user,
there's a pretty decent challenge that, in terms of impact
on society, alcohol users ought to be impacted in terms

(13:44):
of their Second Amendment rights more than marijuana users. Now
my advocating for that, of course not. But you see
the logic or lack thereof when it comes to prohibiting
people from possessing firearms simply because they smoke a joint
from time to time. So anyway, we'll see what goes
on there. I'll talk about some of these other cases
in the Supreme Court, and we'll start taking your calls.

(14:05):
Got a Second Amendment question, whether it's self defense or otherwise,
some of these cases pending before the Supreme Court. Again,
give us a call. Talk to producer Kylon who's hit
setting in for us tonight. It's three one seven two
three nine, ninety three ninety three. This is Guy Ralford
on The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WYBC, and
welcome back. I'm Guy Relford on The Gun Guy Show

(14:25):
on ninety three WYBC. Hey, during that break, I learned
something about celebrity guest producer Kylon that I did not know.
Starting the twenty first, so that's the Friday before Thanksgiving
over at the Indianapolis Zoo. Kylon will be over there
entertaining the kids as the Ice Princess, and that's going
to go on through Christmas all the way to New

(14:46):
Year's and so you want to go there. You would
get pictures taken only with the penguins and other fabulous
animals at the Indianapolis Zoo, especially ones that are active
in the winter time, but get you get your kids
picture with the Ice Princess Kylon tally as well. That's
kind of a cool gig. How'd you how that happened?

Speaker 2 (15:04):
I love it so much. I had started as one
of their witches with Zoo boo when you might have
heard about it, or if you go to the zoo
and trick or treat there, that's what I was doing.

Speaker 1 (15:12):
Hold on, you went from a witch to the ice Princess.

Speaker 2 (15:14):
That's a pretty broad range there, pretty one eighty yeah,
but I'm yeah, the Ice Princess, Princess Noel. I'll be
hanging out in the ice area when you first enter
the zoo, but then also by the seals. The seals
are very active, you be ring winter, and then you
can go to the Santa's village and take a picture
with Santa.

Speaker 1 (15:31):
Oh okay, how cool was that one? There you go.
I'll tell you what. Even my grandkids are getting a
little old, uh for that kind of thing, although I
bet I can talk them into that.

Speaker 2 (15:42):
And the lights, Yes, there's so many beautiful light displays
for you to see zoo.

Speaker 1 (15:47):
Yes, that's they have those up already.

Speaker 2 (15:49):
They're working on it. They started putting them up during Halloween.
Oh wow, it's a long process. That's fantastic, gorgeous in
a lovely night out.

Speaker 1 (15:57):
Well, there you go. There's a lot of cool things
to do in Indiana Annapolis, but going to the zoo
and hanging out the penguins, the seals and the ice princess,
it's got to be pretty cool. So check that out.
I'll tell you what. Let's go to the phone lines,
and Paul has called Paul. Welcome to the gun guy ship.

Speaker 3 (16:13):
Good guy. How are you today, good brother? How you
doing good? Got a question about starting pistols. Yeah, I
work at an antique store and there's a dealer that
sells black powder guns. But he had a starting pistol
in there, and we don't think it's legal to sell

(16:36):
starting pistols only for the reason as I look it
up online, they're really convertible, like you can take the
barrel off even though it's a starting pistol. Is it
legal to sell those, I mean without a license?

Speaker 1 (16:51):
Yeah, no, Paul, It's really it's an interesting question, and
it's I haven't looked at this particular statue in a while,
but the definition of firearm in federal law under federal
law in Indiana's definition is a little different. But federal
law in terms of what's legal to sell and whatnot,

(17:12):
and what's legal to sell without a license. Federal law
controls that anyway. Federal law defines a firearm as a
weapon expelled to eject, to expel a projectile by means
of an explosion. I'll start that over a weapon designed
to expel a projectile by means of an explosion, and

(17:34):
starter pistols. So under federal law they actually have a
specific reference to starter pistols. And then they go on
and also say or a suppressor or silencer, or as
they call it under federal law, a firearm muffler, or
a frame or receiver for any such weapon. And so

(17:55):
federal law names starter pistols specifically. Paul, So I think
your concern is warranted, and if I were that person,
I'd be a little concern. Now, one little caveat. I've
not looked at that statute myself in quite some time.
I don't think it's been changed. But the last time
I looked at it, they called out starter pistols specifically,

(18:18):
to bring starter pistols within the definition of a firearm,
and the readily convertible language also is a potential problem.
But you know, a lot of starter pistols to actually
have like solid barrels and whatnot, so they couldn't expel
a projectile if you wanted them to without actually completely
replacing major components. But anyway, that's the answer to that,

(18:38):
I'll tell you. Also on the phone, we had a
person call in and asked me through producer Kylon, what
my opinion is of the burner type weapon. I talked
about these a little bit here recently in the context
of a person who'd gotten arrested in Fissures for impersonating

(19:00):
police officer and also for criminal recklessness with a deadly
weapon and I believe pointing a firearm as well, and
intimidation with a deadly weapon if I'm remembering the charges correctly,
after he was waving around what turned out to be
a burn a pistol in a bar or restaurant in Fishers. Now,
if I don't have those facts just exactly right, please

(19:21):
forgive me, because it's been a few weeks I think,
since I read the news articles on this, and I
was not contacted about that particular case, so I'm not involved.
But in that context, I was talking about the burna guns.

Speaker 4 (19:35):
What is that.

Speaker 1 (19:35):
It's a CO two powered gun, as I understand, I've
never fired one, I've never operated one. I've read up
on them because I get the questions about them all
the time. People contact me through social media want me
to know what I think. They'll say, You know, my
wife is uncomfortable with the idea of shooting someone, but
I'm so I'm going to get this burner. And what
they do is they shoot either a solid projectile what

(19:58):
I think they call their ballistic rounds, if I'm remembering correctly,
that's like just solid plastic and it's basically just designed
to hurt a lot, right, It's a solid projectile that
hits you. It's not like an airsoft that's just plastic
and hollow. It's like solid, and so it's got some
inertia behind it, some weight behind it, and so it's
going to leave a big old welp and maybe knock

(20:18):
you off your feet. I do not know whether it's
got that kind of muzzle velocity or not. Or they
also fire a pepper ball round, where it's a projectible
round projectile that's got some kind of oc or mace
type compound inside it that bursts when it hits something.
So if you shoot somebody in the chest and that
burst and you know, not only are they saying ow

(20:39):
because they just got shot in the chest with this
plastic projectile, but they also now have a burst of
oc like pepper spray for a more common term, perhaps
for a lot of folks, and that's going to somehow
incapacitate them. I'm not a big fan of things like that.
I think if someone you know is on drug, ugs,

(21:00):
or crazy or some combination thereof, or just highly motivated,
I don't know that I want to rely on a
plastic projectile that mainly is just inflicting some amount of
pain on them to you know, dissuade them. If they're
said on being a bad guy. I'm not sure that
it's going to be all that effective to convince them
to not be a bad guy in that particular instance.

(21:24):
And so I don't know how reliable they are. So
for that reason I've I've not given them like my
heartfelt endorsement. But listen, better than nothing, right, people say,
the best gun you have is the gun that's in
your hand, and if that's only a burnout and I
prefer that over empty hands, all, hell, yeah, you bet so.

(21:47):
But I just don't know that they're entirely reliable, so
I can't give my heartfelt endorsement on that basis. And
with that, I'll tell you what. We're little past the
bottom of the hour. So with that, we're going to
go ahead and take a break. Give us a call,
join the discussion and we'll get you right on the
air with producer Kylon. This is Guy Ralford on The
Gun Guy Show on ninety three WIBC, and welcome back.

(22:10):
I'm Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy Show on ninety
three WIBC. And actually just looked up the news article
on this gentleman in Fisher's who's being prosecuted. I should
look up his case in the system I have access
to by being a lawyer and see what the status
of that case is. But when it happened was This

(22:31):
is interesting to me because we're talking about this Burna,
which is a CO two powered gun. She's either a
solid projectile called a kinetic round. I think I called
it ballistic or something. Just now before the break, Berner
calls it a kinetic that's the solid one that isn't
loaded with any kind of pepper compound, and then the

(22:53):
OC round being separate. But he was charged with with
three felony counts of intimidation that's intimidation with a deadly weapon,
and then two felony accounts of criminal recklessness with a
deadly weapon and also charged with impersonating a police officer.
But that's kind of interesting to me because if you say, well,

(23:14):
I don't get the downsides of carrying or using this
thing because it's a non lethal quote unquote, and I
think most people trained in the area would call it
less lethal, not non lethal. And in fact, I think
where that deadly weapon park comes from is Burna on
their website, if I recall correctly, actually warns you to say, well,
if you hit someone in the head or the spine,

(23:35):
you can potentially kill or paralyze them, and so that's
obviously serious bodily injury. And if it's capable of causing
serious bodily injury, then it can be termed a deadly
weapon in court. And I'm sure that's where his intimidation
with a deadly weapon and criminal recklessness with the deadly
weapon counts come from, at least according to the prosecutors

(23:55):
in Hamilton County. But I'll say what a couple other
folks have called in wanting to talk about Berna and Matt.
I think, Matt, you've had some personal experience. I hope
you were on the right end of that personal experience.

Speaker 5 (24:06):
Oh. Absolutely. And I'll also say that I got I
was able to friend you on Facebook when you switched
your stuff, and I'm grateful for that because I like
to associate with people that are smarter than them, smarter
than me.

Speaker 1 (24:19):
Well, I'm not sure that's true, but I take that.
By the way, I didn't just switch my stuff quote unquote,
I lost my account completely on Facebook. I got thrown off, yes,
and I'll tell that story one of these days, but
I think I probably have in the past. But yeah,
I lost twelve thousand followers and I had to start over.
But anyway, glad we made contact on Facebook. But tell
me the story about you. What using a burner?

Speaker 5 (24:42):
Yeah, so it came across my feed. So I did
a bunch of research, watched a bunch of videos, and
number one, burners are crazy expensive, are they really? So
there's yeah, yeah, they're like four hundred dollars. But then
there's other companies that make a similar product that has
the same feet per second, the same ballistics, you know,

(25:02):
for way less. So I bought one.

Speaker 1 (25:04):
What is the muzzle velocity on the thing? You say,
the same feet per second? What do you know? What
do you call off hand?

Speaker 5 (25:10):
Three hundred?

Speaker 6 (25:11):
Oh?

Speaker 5 (25:11):
Okay per second is what I remember.

Speaker 1 (25:13):
Yeah, and somebody put that in perspective, A relatively slow
handgun round would be like a forty five ACP, which
is about seven hundred and fifty eight hundred feet per second,
so appreciably slower even than what we consider a pretty
slow handgun round. But I'm sorry interrupted.

Speaker 5 (25:27):
You no, no, that that's relevant. So anyways, I'm raising
a crazy seventeen year old son and he has goofy friends.
So we put the I put face protection on him,
you know, full face shield, and twenty feet away, my
son's friend, you know, took three rounds to the chest.

Speaker 1 (25:47):
Oh, this is all experiment.

Speaker 5 (25:49):
Okay, yeah, and I will I'll send you the video
because we're Facebook friends.

Speaker 1 (25:56):
And but this is I have questions. Did you have
any kind of protective gear? Are you wearing like an umpire,
padded vest or you know anything? I mean, is this
is it? It is just like taking one with a
with a T shirt or a flannel shirt, no.

Speaker 5 (26:12):
Full face shield. Oh I had his I had his
face completely covered and he was just wearing a regular
T shirt. It was summertime.

Speaker 3 (26:22):
Wow.

Speaker 5 (26:23):
And he was about twenty twenty five feet away. And
I had already seen a bunch of videos of this
being done, so I knew I wasn't endangering this kid's.

Speaker 1 (26:32):
Life, right, Yeah, So shot him in the chin. Yeah. Yeah.

Speaker 5 (26:36):
Three rounds and the last round was it was a
pepper was a pepper ball boy and this kid, this
kid probably weighed, you know, one hundred and forty pounds
And at first he was like out ouch and it
didn't bother me, and he walked up to us. It
took it took about five or six seconds for the

(26:58):
pepper round to actually take effect, no kidding, And and
the end result was something that you would see if
you ever competed in a in.

Speaker 7 (27:08):
A paintball tournament.

Speaker 1 (27:09):
Yeah.

Speaker 5 (27:10):
And my my point to this is that large person,
small person, a person in a state of rage or whatever,
it's not going to stop them.

Speaker 4 (27:21):
Yeah.

Speaker 5 (27:21):
No, that's that's my opinion.

Speaker 1 (27:23):
Well, if it even took five or six seconds for
it to register, I mean, a bad guy can get
a lot of bad things done in five or six seconds.

Speaker 5 (27:30):
Yeah, I mean, what's the average I mean like seven feet,
you know, the average confrontation, and you.

Speaker 1 (27:36):
Know, inside of eno of you, No, you're right, that
average confrontation happens that just beyond arm's length actually is
the most common confrontation distance, even for a self defense shooting. Well,
that's interesting. So did you come out of this then
concluding that Berna's not for you?

Speaker 5 (27:53):
Absolutely? Yeah, yeah, I mean it's it's better than nothing,
but it's not. It's not going to save your life.

Speaker 4 (27:59):
It's yeah.

Speaker 1 (28:01):
Well, hey, Matt, thanks so much for calling. That's fascinating.
I loved hearing that story. And you know, and that's
also keep in mind Matt's son, I think it was,
or one of his friends. He said it was one
hundred and forty pounds. That's not a real big guy.
I mean I weigh eighty pounds more than that. And
then you add in like some winter clothing, and then

(28:25):
you add in drugs or oh say insanity, and you know,
I get some three hundred pound meth head just kicked
my door in. Do I want him in that situation?

Speaker 6 (28:36):
Now?

Speaker 1 (28:36):
I don't know how many three hundred pound meth heads
there are. Now that I think about that for a second,
but having said that, whatever they happen to be high on,
do I want that person, you know, go an owl
and then continuing to do what they intended to do
when they kicked my door in No, nope, nope, nope,
and nope. Plus that, let me tell you from a
legal perspective, there's still an interesting issue, which is I

(28:58):
told you the definition of fire or under the federal law,
a weapon designed to expel or projectible by means of
an explosion. We Indiana, it has the same definition expel
a projectile by means of an explosion. If you look
up the Dictionary definition of explosion, it just says a
sudden release of gases. That's an explosion. Well, is air

(29:21):
a gas? Well?

Speaker 7 (29:21):
Sure?

Speaker 1 (29:21):
Oxygen, oxygen, nitrogen mixed? Is that a gag? Of course
it is? Is CO two a gas?

Speaker 4 (29:27):
Yes?

Speaker 1 (29:28):
So isn't a CO two gun still a weapon designed
to expel a projectile by means of an explosion? And listen,
you know, I've been a lawyer for a damn long time,
and I practice exclusively the area of a Second Amendment
for a very very long time, and I have never
seen a case in Indiana where someone was prosecuted for say,

(29:49):
being a felon in possession of a CO two pistol.
I've never seen that. Does that mean I would be
one thousand percent confident, one hundred percent confident that if
someone were to say, use a CO two pistol in

(30:10):
some way to have the police called and have the
police then look into their background determine that they're a
fellon in Indiana, of the prohibition is for serious violent
fellons owning a firearm. Could I see a prosecutor or
taking a position that that CO two pistol, because it's
a weapon designed to expel a projectile by means of

(30:32):
an explosion, was a firearm and try to prosecute them
for a possession of a firearm by a serious violent fellon. Now,
that is something I have not researched. I have not
had that case. If I had a client come in
and say that was happening to them, they were being prosecuted,
I would do a deep drill on that research. And
then may very well be a Court of Appeals or
Indiana Supreme Court decision out there that says no, the

(30:54):
legislature when it said explosion meant the combustion of gunpowder,
not just the release of CO two or air like
in an air rifle. I mean, listen, I have an
adult air rifle I call it manufactured by Beman, that
I use to shoot squirrels in invading the bird feeder.
I have to do it both. I have to sneak

(31:15):
up on the squirrel and I also have to do
it so as not to get caught by my wife
because she yells at me when I shoot the squirrels.
But I shoot him in the butt, and you know
that knocks them off the bird feeder and they decide
that's not a bird feeder they probably should come back to.
But that thing shoots at one thousand feet per second.
Now it's shooting a little point one point seven pellet,
and I'm sure it loses velocity very very quickly. But

(31:38):
at short distances a thousand feet per second. Would I
want to get shot with that thing? Oh hell no.
Could I think it could pier skin? Oh hell yes?
Do I consider that AI? Do I consider it a weapon? Certainly?

Speaker 4 (31:49):
I do.

Speaker 1 (31:50):
Do I think you need to follow all safety protocols
when it comes to shooting an air rifle? Oh hell yes.
Do I think someone should go to jail for a
possession of a of a firearm when it's illegal for
them to possess a firearm because they possessed an air
rifle or a CO two pistol. Now, I'll sure us
all don't. Anyway, we went off on a bit of
a tangent but interesting discussion, and thanks so much to

(32:12):
call her Matt, who called in with his own personal experience.
Matt's my kind of guy. The guy who will say, hey, kid,
let's go ahead and put a face mask on you
so I can shoot you with this birth That's my
kind of guy. Right there. I'm glad we're friends on Facebook.
Right now, we're taking a break. This is Guy Ralford
on The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WYBCYH. Welcome back.
I'll tell you what we've got kind of a short

(32:33):
session segment. I should say here at the top of
the hour, but let's go to my phone lines. Our
buddy e Buzzmore has been on hold a bit, e
buzz How you doing real good? How are you doing,
guy good Man? We don't have a lot of time,
but I think I can fitch in what you got
for us.

Speaker 8 (32:50):
Okay, my question is on the whole opposite end of that. Okay,
say you get some hyped up, goofed up kid that's
all doped up, and an anemic nine millimeter does not
stop him. Now normally it's two to the chest, one
to the head. If that doesn't stop, like you just

(33:13):
glance off the skull or something, what there is too
much excessive force.

Speaker 1 (33:20):
Well, I'll tell you that's probably a longer answer, Buzz
than we may have time for. But the question comes
down to if deadly force was justified in the in
the beginning, if you are justified in using deadly force.
As soon as deadly force is justified, then you can
use whatever level of force is necessary to stop the threat.

(33:43):
And listen, I carry a nine millimeter. I wouldn't call
it anemic, especially with modern performance ammunition. Two to the chest,
one to the head, assuming adequate shot placement, glance off
the skull isn't going to happen if you're hitting someone
in what we call the cranial ocular cavity, which is
basically around the eyes, you know, top of the head
something like that. Yeah, I can bounce off, but with

(34:05):
good shot placement, let's put down anybody that I can imagine.
And with that we're at the top of the arrow.
Let's take a break. This is Guy Ralford on The
Gun Guy Show on ninety three WIBC, and welcome back.
I'm Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy Show on ninety
three WIBC. We're glad you're with us. As we get
into our number two, tell me let's go immediately to
the phone lines. We've had Brad call in, and Brad

(34:28):
I think had a question perhaps in a previous show
that he didn't quite get answered. So I get that right, Brad,
is something you like to kind of raise again?

Speaker 4 (34:37):
Yes, sir, about three or four weeks ago, there was
a gentleman that called in about expungement and his crime
could could not be exposed. So my question is if
someone has had a serious crime that cannot be exposed,
and he sends letters to a governor for a state
law or to the president for a federal law and

(34:58):
shows a proof of a chain life or whatever, could
be pard and actually be stronger and give them back
their Second Amendment rights.

Speaker 1 (35:08):
Yes, no, it's a great question, Brad, and I'm glad
you called to raise it because when people have called
me before, and the gentleman you called that you were
mentioned that called in before, as I recall, had a
conviction for a sex crime, and most sex crimes that
are that are felonies, cannot be expunged. And I think

(35:31):
anybody can understand the public policy behind that. It's not
me being judgmental, as just explaining why, or at least
understanding the rationale behind the law. And when people call
and they're asking me about expungement and I have to
give them that the answer that it can't be expunged
or in some cases very very difficult to get an expungement,

(35:56):
they say, well, what you tell me, I have no
options whatsoever. And my response to them as well, you
can get a governor, a pardon from the governor, or
as you mentioned, for a federal crime, a pardon from
the president. And and and I've had a couple It's interesting,
in all these years and I've been practicing law, I've

(36:17):
had a couple of people say, well, would you help
me request a pardon? And I've said sure, I mean,
I've never done it before, but yeah, every every trail
has to be blazed the first time at some point,
and so I'll say, hell, let's let's figure it out.
And and it's gotten to the point though, where no
one's actually hired me to do that. I'd love to

(36:38):
try it one time, just to go through the process.
And I'm sure the way you phrased the question, Brad,
is is exactly the right way to approach it, which
is to, you know, show one that they're mitigating circumstances
about the crime itself, that perhaps it wasn't as egregious
and you know, as perhaps just the crime itself would suggest.

(37:01):
But then secondly, talking about how someone's life has changed
and how they've they've turned their lives around, and and
who knows, I don't know how many pardons you know,
are actually granted. I'm sure it varies by governor. I
don't know how many pardons Governor Holcom issued during his
time as governor. I don't know now whether Governor Braun

(37:25):
has has has you issued any as well at all,
But but it'd be interesting to look into. But yeah,
that is exactly the answer to that question. And and
just to talk a little bit more, I mean, I
was talking about this during the live read, but let's
talk a little bit more about that. The general requirements
for expungement for a misdemeanor, a misdemeanor to get it

(37:49):
expunged off your record. It takes five years with a
clean criminal history that that that doesn't include parking, driving offenses,
speeding and whatnot. Those are those aren't convictions, aren't Those
aren't criminal convictions. Those are infractions or ordinance violations, so speeding,

(38:10):
things that are non criminal that didn't count. So you
can't have any kind of a criminal conviction for the
last five years. You have to have paid all your fines,
fees and court costs. If there is any restitution, that's
usually paying back the victim. So a lot of times,
like in theft type convictions or criminal conversion, we're just

(38:30):
kind of a misdemeanor level theft type crime. You have
to pay somebody back for something you may have stolen.
You have to have paid your restitution, met other conditions
of your probation, and if you've paid all your fines, fees,
court costs, you've had that much time a misdemeanor and
actually the lowest level felonies what used to be what
we call class D das in Delta and now what

(38:54):
we call level six. We went from classes and letters
for Fellon needs to levels and numbers back around twenty
and twelve twenty thirteen something like that, and we went
from ABCD class felonies to one through six plus murder
at the top. And for the lowest level felony level

(39:17):
six now or class d's and misdemeanors, it's actually mandatory
for the judge to grant your expungement if you are
eligible for expungement. Now for felony, it's eight years with
a clean criminal history again, paid all your fines, fees
and court costs and restitution, met the conditions of your probation.

(39:39):
For level six or class D felonies, if you you're eligible,
judge has to grant it, and so a lot of
times they don't even they don't even hold hearings on those.
Now for level five or class c's and more serious crimes,
those are discretionary and assuming it's an expungeable conviction, the

(40:01):
judge can granted or not granted. So like let's say
you have a Class C or Class B dealing cocaine conviction,
and it's from thirty years ago. I had had one
client and I asked him if I could share generically
his story, and he said I could, which I appreciated

(40:22):
a lot because it's to me it was a lot
of fun to represent him. But he he called me
one time and he said, man, I just tried to
buy a gun and I was not able to and
they told me that not only am I a felon,
but I'm a serious violent felon. And I was just
shocked because I've never done anything violent in my life.

(40:46):
And in fact, for the last thirty five years or so,
I've been a pastor and I'm the leader of my
church and I'm the lead pastor, and you know, I've
established you know, orphanages for children and drug rebuilt clinics,
and I've done all these wonderful things throughout the last
thirty five years or so. And I'm a pillar of

(41:08):
the community. And I'm being told I'm a serious violent felon,
and that just shocks me to my core. And I said, well,
you mean you've never actually had any kind of criminal conviction.
He goes, well, there was that cocaine thing way back when.
And I said, oh, that cocaine thing. That's interesting. What
cocaine thing are we talking about it? He said, well,

(41:28):
back in seminary school, which immediately got my attention. He said,
my study group and I were having trouble staying awake
to study. We try to do all nighters or study
late for a test, and we just couldn't stay awake.
And one guy's roommate had given him a little bit
of cocaine just to sort of experiment with, and he said, man,

(41:52):
I took a little bit of cocaine and I could
just stay up all night and I could focus and study,
and I did better on the test, and I crashed afterward.
And so some of the other folks in the study
group said, well, man, I'll try that. And so the
guy went back to his roommate and figured out where
he could get a little bit of cocaine. And later
on the first who turned out to be my client,

(42:15):
went and asked the same question, goes man, where'd you
get that? And he said, well, I went and I
bought it from this guy. And he went and bought
not a large amount at all, but enough for the
group to use for the next study session before some test.
And of course, one of those other kids got caught
with cocaine during a traffic stop, and the cops immediately said, well,

(42:36):
who's your dealer, And he said, well, I bought it
from so and so, who was just another kid in
the study group. So he ends up with a felony conviction.
It was a Class B felony B as in Bravo,
for dealing cocaine and all these years ago, and it

(43:00):
apparently didn't affect him all that much in his lifetime.
I think he told me he had to transfer schools,
but got admitted somewhere else and it really hadn't affected
him much since then. He did have to do a
little bit of jail time, but I think they let
him serve it on weekends or something, if I recall correctly.
But he goes they're telling me that was a felony,
and I didn't really do much time in jail. Well,

(43:21):
whether it's a felony or not is based on what
the maximum penalty for that particular crime is, not the
amount of time you were actually ordered to serve. So
if something's punishable by over a year, that's a felony.
If you have a felony conviction, any felony conviction, violent, nonviolent,
it doesn't matter how long ago. I had. Somebody called
me one time said said, well, after a certain period

(43:42):
of time, don't those fall off your record, Like after
twenty years doesn't a felony fall off your record, And
I would no, nothing falls off your record. If it's
on your record, it's on your record unless you do
something to take it off. And that's what expungement's all about,
and so they don't fall off. But this guy was

(44:03):
shocked to learn that in Indiana he was a serious
violent felon when all he did was saw a little
bit of cocaine, didn't do anything violent at all. But
if you look up the statute that defines serious violent
felonies in Indiana, the Indiana legislature decided, yess obviously violent
crimes like armed robbery and rape and murder and those
types of crimes that we considered to be obviously violent.

(44:26):
Not only those are people that we don't then afterward
want possessing firearms according to the legislature. There's a good,
very good argument, and I have many other people make
this argument, and I think it carries a lot of logic,
which is, if you're not so dangerous that society believes
you can be released out of prison and actually re

(44:48):
enter society, If you're not so dangerous that you shouldn't
be locked up, then are you so dangerous that you
shouldn't be able to exercise your constitutional rights. That's an
argument that to me has some logic behind. Now, do
I think anytime soon the Indiana legislature is going to
remove the prohibition against serious violent felons possessing firearms A hill, No,

(45:09):
I see absolutely no appetite for that whatsoever. But the
legislature in defining serious violent felons, which in Indiana under
state law, that's who can't possess a firearm. Them plus
domestic batterers, even misdemeanor crimes and domestic violence can't possess firearm.
But why did they make the crime of dealing cocaine?

(45:30):
Why did they make a conviction for that a serious
violent felony? Because they also decided they didn't want drug
dealers carrying guns. So have a conviction for dealing heroin,
dealing meth other schedule one drive Schedule one. They don't
handle drug cases, but I forget that terminology, but other

(45:50):
controlled substances, and you have a dealing conviction. Not only
are you a felon, but you're a serious violent felon.
So what did we do? It was a higher level finally,
so it was discretionary. So we filed for the expoonishment.
He was clearly eligible. It's been thirty some years with
absolutely pristine record. And then Judge scheduled for your hearing.
This is in Hamilton County, and I said, listen, we

(46:12):
want people to come in and you know, from the
from the from from the community, other community leaders, maybe
other members of your church. You know, if you've got
a few people that you think are reputable and whose
testimony would be convincing to the judge, then I have
them come down and I'll meet them before the hearing
and we'll talk about their stories and what they can say,

(46:33):
and we'll decide who we're going to call. And I
show up for this hearing and they had to he
had to have thirty people there. They're like filled the
hall outside the courtroom. And I said, whoa, whoa, whoa.
The court schedule is these hearings for about half an
hour at the most. And I said, we got a
whittle of this down, and so we decided on four
people who are pillars of the community, also community leaders.

(46:57):
They had law enforcement, senior law enforcement for person there
like a deacon from the church, and all these very
impressive folks, and my client got on the stand and
told his story and it was all this time ago.
And then he told his story of all these wonderful
things he'd done in the community, and I put somebody
on you talked about like the home for a child

(47:19):
or parents children that he had established, and the guy
got on, talked about the drug rehabilitation clinic that my
client went on. And I finally judge looked at me
and said, counsel, enough, I'm granting the petition. Stop. And
he also saw like the thirty seven people sitting in
the back of the courtroom looking at me like you're
not really going to call all these people, are you?

(47:39):
But we got a granted even though it was discretionary.
But that's an example of where yes, it's discretionary for
it because it was a higher level felony. So the
judge has a hearing. He wants to hear what have
you done with your life? What were the circumstances going
on in your life when you had this conviction? Are
you someone who deserves a second chance, deserves to have
your rights reinstated. And in my mind, and in my experience,

(48:01):
which is extensive, because I filed an awful lot of
I was working on expudgement petition this morning before watching
the IU game, and I do a lot of them,
and in my mind, even the discretionary ones, the judge
think if the judges typically think that if you're going
through the process of wanting to have your rights legally restored,

(48:22):
you're not the kind of person who's going to go
up pick up a gun at for some first opportunity
and commit a crime, especially true where you've gone all
this time with a clean record, which you have to
have done eight years for a felony to be eligible
for expungement to begin with. So I think judges have
a positive attitude about people to go through the process,
and a lot of times people have really compelling stories

(48:42):
to tell that you know, now they're professional, now, they're
happily married, now, they you know, support their children, now,
they are gainfully employed, no long productive employment history, and
there's a lot of there are a lot of good
stories to tell out there, and judge are really inclined
to grant those so they they they meet with a
lot of success, and as they should, because people deserve

(49:03):
that second chance, which is exactly the reason the legislature
liberalized the statute in twenty thirteen to make that many
more people eligible for expongement. And I love doing them.
I love to see look on people's faces and when
their rights are restored. I've had people say, you know,
I was a deer hunter my whole life, and then
I got this conviction, and for the last ten or
fifteen years or whatever it is, I haven't been able

(49:24):
to even have a gun next to the bed at
night to protect my family. I haven't been able to
go deer hunting. I haven't been able able to go
squirrel hunting with my kids and all the things I
used to do with my dad because I had this
conviction on my record. So it's a big deal. There
are certain crimes that are not expongeable. There are also
crimes what are called crimes of domestic violence where you
can get an expungement for those. But an expungement does

(49:46):
not restore gun rights. I says right in the expungement statue.
An expungement for a conviction for a crime of domestic violence,
it removes it from your record. If it's a misdemeanor
or low level felony like a D or a six,
it removes it from your record, but it doesn't restore
your gun rights. But there's a separate restoration process for that,

(50:09):
and a lot of people unfortunately have picked up a
conviction for battery, for instance, or domestic battery, and there's
a definition, very broad definition for crime and domestic violence
that results in people having lost their gun rights, and
that comes as surprise to a lot of people, which
I'll go into here a little bit after this break.

(50:31):
Right now, we're taking a break. Join the discussion. Give
us a call three one seven two three nine ninety
three ninety three. You have questions or comments about a
Second Amendment issue, give us a call. We'll get you
on right away, Producer Kylon Will. It's three one seven
nine ninety three ninety three, says Guy Ralford on The
Gun Guy Show on ninety three WYBC. And welcome back.

(50:52):
I'm Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy Show on ninety
three WYBC. Just before that break, I was talking about
crimes of domestic vio violence, and I'll tell you what
this catches people unaware a lot. And I hate having
this conversation because invariably it ends up with people very
upset at their prior lawyers. But for instance, a crime

(51:12):
of domestic violence is a very has a very broad definition.
It's any crime, doesn't matter what you call it. It
could be battery, could be domestic battery, could be criminal confinement,
could be intimidation. If it meets a certain definition, which
is any crime, doesn't matter what you call it, if
it has as an element of the crime either the

(51:32):
use of physical force. By definition, any battery involves the
use of force. You know what a battery is, I've
been saying for a long damn time. A battery is
the easiest crime for any prosecutor to ever get a
conviction on it. There's the easiest crime to ever prove.
You know what a battery is. Battery is touching someone
in a rude, angry or insolent manner. Touching in a rude,

(51:53):
angry or insolent manner, you don't have to hurt them.
You have to be trying to hurt them. You shove someone,
Is that a battery? Yeah, it is if you do
it in a rude, angry or insolent manner. The thing
guys do where we poke each other in the chest,
I'm going to kick your butt. He poke somebody with
your index finger? Is that touching someone in a rude
angry or insolent manner. Hell yeah, it is, so if

(52:17):
it involves either the use of physical force or the
threatened use of a deadly weapon. So you don't even
have to touch anyone. You wave a knife around, you
wave a baseball bat around, certainly a gun threaten them.
That's why intimidation can apply. Criminal confinement. You know, criminal
confinement is that's just preventing someone from moving. So someone says,

(52:40):
that's it, I'm leaving, I'm leaving the house. You stand
in front of the door and say no, hell no,
you're not, and you put your hand on them. You
use force to keep them from walking out the door
because you put your hand in the middle of their
chest or you grab them by the shoulders. That's now
criminal confinement by way of a bat. It's also a battery.

(53:03):
And if that person now is a family or household member,
and family or household member has an incredibly broad definition.
Anyone you've ever dated, been in a romantic relationship with
someone you're related to by blood, your great grandson, and
it goes on from there. It's very broad definition. So
any crime, don't I what call it. So there are

(53:24):
people that happens all the time people get charged with
domestic battery because they got an angry argument with their spouse.
Somebody calls nine to one one, the police arrive. So
what happened, Well, he shoved me, he pushed me, he
hit me, she hit me, she pushed me, she scrashed me.
Whatever it might be. Those are batteries and they're against

(53:47):
a family or household member. So a lot of times
people get charged with domestic battery. And then here's what happens.
Sometimes the prosecutor will come to him and say, you know,
if you get a conviction for a domestic battery, you'll
lose your gun right. Because a lot of times they'll know,
like I've had clients or cops or firearms instructors or
avid hunters or competitive shooters, and prosecutor figure out their

(54:10):
gun rights are a big deal to them. They'll say,
we'll drop the domestic battery if you just plead guilty
to battery as a misdemeanor, no jail time, only a
year of probation, go on with life. And so they
plead guilty to battery where they because they drop the
domestic battery and everyone is under the impression the defense
attorney certainly the client, often the judge, maybe even the prosecutor.

(54:35):
Because I'm not saying this is even done intentionally. Sometimes
it's just done out of not understanding how the law
in this area works, because not everybody is a student
of the Second Amendment issues as controlled by Indiana law
or federal law. So somebody will will plead guilty to
battery after domestic battery is dropped, and are there then

(54:57):
very upset to learn later on they go to try
to buy a gun, or they apply for their license
to carry and they're told you can't possess a gun
because you have a conviction for a crime and domestic violence.
A lot of times then they call me and they say, well,
what is going on here? Because I had this case.
My lawyer told me they were dropping domestic battery. I
just played guilty to battery and says it's not domestic

(55:18):
but it's not a crime and domestic violence. I said, well,
who was the victim? What doesn't matter who the victim was,
it matters a lot. Well, victim was my wife, victim
was my husband, victim was my ex husband. Well, it's
a crime of domestic violence. And they often then want
to explain to me that I just don't understand because
they say, no, no, no, they dropped the domestic battery. I go,
doesn't make any difference even though it's just battery. Since

(55:42):
it was a crime involved in the use of physical
force and the victim was a family or household member,
it's a crime of domestic violence, and there's a separate statue.
There's one statute says if you have a conviction for
domestic battery, you can't possess a gun. There's another statute says,
if you have a conviction for a crime and domestic violence,
you can't possess a gun. So they dropped domestic bata.
You're okay to the one statute, but not the other one.

(56:03):
You do have a conviction for crime and domestic violence
and you can't possess firearm. And then sometimes they'll even
call me and say no, no, no, you don't understand. I
had it expunged. So when they're upset, because they should
never in their minds, should have never lost their rights
at all because it wasn't domestic battery, it was just battery.
And then they had it exposed, and I said, well,
I got more bad news for you, because an expungement

(56:24):
for a crime domestic violence does not restore your gun rights. Now,
they're really upset because they may have spent quite a
bit of money on the expungement, paying a lawyer to
do that for him. And the only good news in
that scenario is that there is a restoration process after
a crime of domestic violence. If it's been at least
five years since the conviction for a misdemeanor crime domestic violence,

(56:47):
you can file what's called a petition for restoration of rights.
It's a whole separate process from expungement. If you also
want it off your record, you can also file on
an expungement for the restoration. Again, it's discretionary like an
expungement for a higher level crime. So even though it's
a misdemeanor or a low level fellony, it's discretionary. It

(57:08):
doesn't matter what level crime it is. If it was
a crime of domestic violence, again, you file those judges,
set them for hearing, they go in and you present
your case. Here's what happened, Here's what resulted. Here's what
this person's life's been like. Here's what their relationships have
been like since then. Here's their employment history. Here's their

(57:30):
contributions to their community, whatever it might be. Here's why
this person deserves to have their rights restored. And again,
judges look at that for the most part and say, hey,
if this is someone who's turned their lives around, who
learn from their mistake and a lot of times that
you know and listen, I am not minimizing the problem
we have in this country with crimes and domestic violence.

(57:51):
We have a horrible problem with it. My mother was
a victim of horrible domestic violence, not from my father,
from a subsequent relationship after my parents were longer together.
It's somebody I'm still somewhat blessed that I'm not personally
in jail based on what I wanted to do this
person after he battered my mother. So we have a

(58:16):
horrible crime. We have a horrible problem with crimes and
domestic violence, and nothing I'm ever going to say is
going to diminish that. However, there are also situations that
evolve a pretty minor transgression, a push, a shove, a scratch,
something done in anger that everybody learned from, everybody's remorseful for,
and that's why there's a process for getting your rights
restored after that I'm glad that there is, but a

(58:38):
lot of times people are dismayed that they ever lost
their rights to begin with, much less if there's a
legal process they have to go through separate and apart
from expungement in order to get those rights restored. But
that's something that we do a lot of and I'm
glad to do, and I'm glad to let people know
how that works. And I see what a couple of
people have called with some questions about that. Tell you what,
We're gonna take a quick break here at the bottom
of the air and we come back. I'll go right

(58:59):
to the phone line. So yancey, casey. Oh, my buddy
Kelly is on there too. We'll go right to the
phone lines when we come back. This guy Ralford on
The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WIBC, and welcome back.
Thanks so much for being with us here on the
Gun Guy Show this Seaven. Let's go right to the
phone lines, and my pal Kelly and Avon is on
the phone, otherwise known as the Assistant Legislative director or

(59:25):
co legislative director. Excuse me, I almost gave you a
demotion there, Kelly, co Legislative director at the Indiana State
Rifle and Pistol Association, and so ISRP I and Kelly
and I work together closely, and Kelly which got for us, Buddy.

Speaker 7 (59:40):
Oh well, first off, guy, I have to say I've
been calling your show for years you have, and Kylon
is by far the nicest producer you've ever had. So
whoever you got to poach her from to make her
your producer, I would say, do it.

Speaker 4 (59:54):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (59:54):
Well, unfortunately we can't afford Kylon on any kind of
a regular basis. She's got many more jobs. She's just
being nice enough to sit in because producer Jack's gone
on to other things. And so that's why I called
her our celebrity guest producer. We wouldn't be lucky enough
to talk her into doing it all the time. She's
got more important things to do, but we do. I
appreciate her being here and helping out really out of

(01:00:16):
the goodness of her heart. But I couldn't agree with
you more. If I could talk her into accepting the
gig full time, I'd be all over it.

Speaker 7 (01:00:22):
Yeah, that would. I would definitely recommend that. Well, you've
already said, well, we can't talk about tonight. Yeah, I
thought I'd bring up the legislative session that's coming up there,
you bet not only a short session, but going to
be a short short session. Yeah, yeah, that's I mean,
with it starting early to argue over redistricting. And if

(01:00:44):
you look at how the legislative session works, the only
place you can shorten the timeline on this is have
fewer bills come up in hearing. That is the only
way you can do it. It's not like you can say, well,
we're going to skip first reading and go straight here,
or well, no amendments were going straight to third reading.
I'm probably there's probably laws against that. I don't think

(01:01:06):
they can do that.

Speaker 1 (01:01:07):
No, you're right, the processes is set and as far
as the different stages that have to bill has to
go through in order to get passed. And your point, Kelly,
and I don't want to go off on too much
of a tangent here, but when Governor Bron called a
special session not only for the legislature to address redistricting
at the request of President Trump and Vice President Vance

(01:01:28):
and others in Washington, but then also to address aligning
Indiana's tax code with changes in federal tax code, Governor
Bron called a special session. And you know what the
legislature essentially did was said no, which that's kind of
not how the Indiana constitution works. The governor calls a
special session. If he calls a special session, governor said,

(01:01:48):
or the legislature said, no, we're not really going to
have a special session. We're just going to start the
twenty twenty five session a little early in order to
address these things. But they didn't give themselves very much time,
which means it's going to eat up time for other
legislative matters, which is a long winded way of saying,
I agree with you that I'm a I'm a little
disappointed that we're not going to have more time in

(01:02:10):
a short session. Anyway, just for everybody understands that every
other year is a budget year, that's a long session,
and then we have the short session, which originally never
didn't occur at all. The short session was when they
started convening legislature every year, which for years after Indiana
became a state, legislature only met every other year. So

(01:02:31):
anyway we're in a short session anyway that's going to
get eaten into by redissecting and tax alignment and so
what the hell are we going to get done?

Speaker 7 (01:02:38):
Becomes the question, Yeah, because I think ye, when I
know there's a lot of folks listening to this. They
get emails from you from the two A project, They're
going to get emails from Nick boogia at from the NRA,
and it won't have my name on it, but they
will get an email drafted by me from the State
Rifle and Pistol Association talking about legislation, and it's going

(01:03:01):
to be a We're going to have to hit them
fast and furious to uh to get their attention to
get something to get through there, because yeah, we're as
it is. If they shortened the number of weeks are
having committee hearings, it very well could be, Uh, you're
supporting a bill on the Senate side and I'm on
the House site supporting a similar bill. But because they're overlapping,

(01:03:24):
we can be in two places at once.

Speaker 1 (01:03:26):
Yeah, that's true. And you know some of the things
that I think are going to require a lot of
debate and protracted fighting over, like we're you know, we're
going to try to bring back campus cary, which is
to require state universities in Indiana to allow the obsession
of firearms on campus. That's going to be a contentious issue.

(01:03:48):
In a regular session, I would have some optimism. Uh, well,
we'd at least have a fighting chance in a short session.
I just don't think many, let when many committee chair
are even going to want to take that on given
the extreme shortness of the session.

Speaker 7 (01:04:06):
Yeah, and that's one. I've got three to five minutes
ready to go on it right now.

Speaker 1 (01:04:10):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (01:04:11):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:04:11):
Well, and one that's to me easy, And it's an
extension of what I got done in terms of a
bill I wrote last year, which is our requiring expungement
of red flag proceedings once a determined a person is
determined to be not dangerous in a red flag proceeding.
We got that done last year. That's already I've already
used that multiple times for clients, and I love doing it.

(01:04:32):
I just had a hearing on Thursday where I've already
submitted a proposed to order. It's going to expunge all
those records under that. But an extension of that is
to also require the appointment of counsel for anyone who
can't afford their own lawyer in a red flag case
because it's not a criminal case. So you don't have
a right to counsel, which is ludicrous to me. If
you can lose a constitutional right, your Second Amendment rights

(01:04:54):
become a prohibitive possessor and you can't afford a lawyer
and you don't get a lawyer, how is that consistent
with due process? And so I think that that one's easy,
straightforward and simple enough. The only problem is it's a
non budget year, and so we may run into a
problem where it has to go through ways and means,
and there has to be an allocation of money because

(01:05:15):
someone's going to say who's going to pay for the lawyer?
They're now going to be appointed for people they can't
afford their own. But but but whether we're going to
take a break here at pretyson Kelly, what what would
you say as a priority for I s r p
A and trying to get it done this year?

Speaker 7 (01:05:29):
Well, I'll tell you that's uh that the bill you
just mentioned is definitely one I think we could get
across because it's you walk in and your opening statement
is last year expungement passed unanimously out of both houses
did have a pretty good start.

Speaker 1 (01:05:43):
Yeah, well that's a good point, And this to me
is a logical extension of that. So hey, thanks so
much Kelly for calling in. Always glad when you do
call in. Love working with you and the good folks
at is r P I. Right now we're taking a break.
Is Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy Show on ninety
three WYBC, And welcome back to our last segment here
on The Gun Guy Show. I tell you we've got

(01:06:04):
some people on hold for quite a while. Let's see
if we can do a little bit of a blitz
on the phones here. Keep it succinct if you don't mind,
and we'll see if we get to everybody online. And
Yancy is called Yancy. Welcome to the Gun Guy Show.

Speaker 9 (01:06:18):
Yes, sir, I did not know that you had a
low and attorney background, so that's interesting to learn.

Speaker 1 (01:06:26):
Also, God, yes, well, I.

Speaker 9 (01:06:35):
Was wondering, I don't have a background as far as
I passed in regards to guns, I don't know. I'm
not a gun person. I don't have any past history
of background in regards to harming. We come to sexual
aural things like that, but there's a brief domestic not domestic,
rather than I'm sawt on my background as a jubidole.

(01:06:57):
But my question is this though, if you do have
your get exponged, is there any protection for those persons
who have this initiative to try to find out what
would be in your background and as fur as when
you come to work related when employeers are trying to
find things, or is there any loopholes that even attorneys
can even employ to try to find out even if

(01:07:19):
there's an expongement that has occurred, that they could still
find out if you have a track record of such,
I mean that legal for them to try to even
do that if you have any no legal.

Speaker 1 (01:07:30):
If it expunged off your record, then really it's sealed
off the public record. The only people have access to
that the court system and law enforcement. And yeah, there
are protections, and in fact, the statute even allows you
to answer no. Somebody asks you if you ever have
any criminal conviction, if you've had a conviction exponged, you
can say no. And there's even an anti discrimination provision

(01:07:52):
in the expungement statute that says if you're discriminated against
for employment or otherwise on the basis of an expunged convictions,
actually against the law to discriminate someone on the basis
of that. So there are protections building to the statute
that really make it worth worthwhile, and the legislature I
think did a really nice job in doing exactly that.
Let's go back to the phone lines, and Casey's been

(01:08:15):
on hold for a while. Man, thanks for your patience, Casey, it's.

Speaker 6 (01:08:18):
All right, I'm sorry, I said, that's okay.

Speaker 1 (01:08:23):
Okay, what you got First.

Speaker 6 (01:08:26):
Let's say you got a neighbor in distress. You live
out in the country, you can't see their house, they're
screaming whatever.

Speaker 4 (01:08:34):
And then.

Speaker 6 (01:08:36):
So you go down there to see what's going on
or try and help them out. When would it be
all right to use deadly force when you got to
their house.

Speaker 1 (01:08:47):
Yeah, well it's a great question, Casey. And since it's
not your house. Indiana's castle doctrine, which allows you to
defend your home, it actually allows you to use deadly
forced to either prevent or terminate an unlawful entry into
your home. A lot of people commenting on Indiana self
defense laws right now on social media don't understand that part.

(01:09:09):
You can use reasonable force, including deadly force, if you
reasonably believe that force is necessary to prevent or terminate
an unlawful entry into your house. But that only applies
to your house, that's where you're staying, where you're living.
If it's your neighbor's house, the castle doctrine doesn't apply
to you. So to answer your question, when you can
use deadly force to protect your neighbor other than yourself,

(01:09:31):
is you have to reasonably believe that you're preventing serious
bodily injury to you or a third person. That third
person can obviously be your neighbor, or the commission of
a forcible felony. So let's say you get over there
in the screaming. It turns out you know that your
neighbors being raped out on the lawn. Well, rape is

(01:09:52):
obviously a forcible felony. Can you use deadly force to
defend your neighbor absolutely against a violent crime of what
we call a forcible only like rape? One hundred percent?
Or it's an armed home invasion and people are in
there pointing guns at your neighbor, can you use deadly force? Yes,
one hundred percent, to the extent you reasonably believe that

(01:10:12):
that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to
your neighbor. And I'll tell you what I think we
got time for our last caller the chap has called
in Chap welcome to the Gun Guy Show.

Speaker 10 (01:10:27):
Hey guy, I'll be quick for and I appreciate your
work with everybody. I know some of the stuff may
seem basic to you, but it's so so interesting. The
rest of us, our family is moving to the west
side of the needed Utah, and I'll preface this with
outside of Illinois, we're going to have everything we own
trailing behind our vehicle and I fully plan on either
open carrying or it may be underneath a short where

(01:10:49):
it is truly concealed. I do have my ADI analysis
to carry, so I am in the system. Any advice
you can give in the event we end up in
contact the law enforcement, whether it's a traffic stop, seem
in address area, is something like that for the.

Speaker 1 (01:11:06):
Trip in Illinois specifically, or in any other stand.

Speaker 10 (01:11:12):
Illinois, I'm putting it in the back of the car.
I ain't touching it. I'm as the rest of the states.
I'm also a member of USCCA, so I've done a
lot of our research on what I can do. I
know Illinois is a dead stop. I'm not going to
do a thing or I'm going to be at sixty
five miles an hour in a sixty five.

Speaker 4 (01:11:27):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:11:27):
Yeah, and I'll say thanks for calling buddy. One thing.
Let me just we don't have much time, so I'll
answer your question this way, going through Illinois. Illinois changed
our law recently where you now, if with an Indianna
license to carry, you can possess possess a gun in
your vehicle in Illinois, only in your vehicle going through Illinois.
So I wouldn't stop for gas, get gas in Tara

(01:11:50):
Hate or wherever it is, do not stop in Illinois.
But you can possess a gun now in Illinois with
your Indiana license to carry. And that's a wrap for
this week's Gun Guy show. Hope you enjoyed it, Hope
you come back. Remember always shoot straight and be safe.
This is Guy Ralford on ninety three WIBC