The Gun Guy - Full Show - 11/15/2025

The Gun Guy - Full Show - 11/15/2025

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.

Speaker 2 (00:15):
Guy Moon boom boom boom bang bang bang bang mom boom, boom,
boom bang bang bom.

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

Speaker 3 (00:30):
Wel good afternoon, and welcome to the gun Guys show
here on ninety three WYBC. Or thrill that you're with us.
I got to start the show by giving a shout
out to my Depat University, Tigers participated in the Monon
Bell Game against the evil little Giants of Wabash College.
And this is a rival. It was called the Monon
Bell Game because they play for an old railroad bell

(00:54):
taking off a locomotive that ran on the Monon line
that actually ran but Wan Crawfordsville and Greencastle where the
two universities are located. And today was one hundred and
thirty first meeting of Depawn Wabash. It's one of the
oldest rivalries in the country and DePauw took this one.
It's our fourth in a row forty one to twenty,

(01:16):
so I've played in four of those games. Myself, I
did not go four and oh, I hate to say,
in my four years in fact, I had the miserable
record of h to four. So I'm moving vicariously now
through the current rendition of the Depau Tiger. So congratulations
to those guys and their coaching staff. They're going to
go on to the Division III playoffs now, so I

(01:38):
have to keep an eye on that. But let's get
back to the Second Amendment business at hand, And with
the government shutdown coming to an end here this past Wednesday,
that's nice. You know, we're going to get the air
traffic controllers paid, get our military paid, military and taking
care of those folks has got to be a priority,

(02:00):
of course, and get things a bit back to normal.
I'm not a big fan of the government generally, and
so it's when it's shut down. Other than people who
are still working hard and especially putting themselves in harm's
way for their country, I want to see them compensated.
Beyond that, government shut downs don't particularly bothering me, just

(02:22):
on a policy basis, But my mind immediately turned to okay,
now that Congress is back to functioning at least as
well as Congress is capable of functioning these days. What
should we be expecting to happen or what should we
be pushing to happen on the second Amendment front, And

(02:46):
immediately came to mind, there is national constitutional carry reciprocity.
That is a bill filed this year. It's gotten through
the committee process in the House, and so it is
right for a vote in the House. And now that
Congress is back to work on something other than trying
to pass a spending bill, I think a priority ought

(03:12):
to be getting this passed. Now. Are there enough votes
to get sixty votes in the Senate to get past
the filibuster or to achieve cloture, That's an open question.
There are certainly Democrats in the Senate whose states are
pro two A and who, if they strongly come out

(03:34):
anti TWOA is clearly are clearly going to be jeopardized
potentially in their next election. And so I don't dismiss
the possibility of getting sixty votes in the Senate. And
at a minimum, I would like to see a vote,
and I would like to see a strong push. But
national concealed carry reciprocity, and it's constitutional carry reciprocity is

(03:59):
what we're calling this version of the bill. How is
that different than reciprocity bills that have been introduced in
the past, And what are we even talking about when
we're talking about national reciprocity. Well, today, every state is
required to issue some form of licensed to carry handgun
to their own residence. Here Indiana, we've had one for

(04:21):
years and years. It is called a license to carry handgun.
If you call it something else, like a concealed carry
permit or a CCW or CPL or some other vernacular
that may be used in other states, it's not used here.
Our license is called a licensed to carry handgun and
it allows both open and concealed carry. Yes, we have

(04:44):
constitutional carry. I worked very, very hard for ten years.
One of the reasons I formed the Two Way Project
was to form a grassroots movement to support gun rights
here in Indiana. And there is plenty to do, and
we are busy every year. We're going to be busy
again this legislative session that's coming up. But constitutional carry

(05:06):
was a big focus. So, yes, you can carry a
handgun without a license or a permit here in Indiana
if you're not legally prohibited under state or federal law.
From possessing a gun if you're at least eighteen years old.
That applies to residents and non residents. It applies to
open carry and concealed care. A lot of confusion about

(05:27):
those things, but yes, we have constitutional carry. There is
still a very good reason to get a licensed to
carry handgun. And I cover this in the class that
I teach on Indiana gun laws. But a huge reason.
Did you know that under the Federal Gun Free School
Zones Act, it is illegal to have a gun on

(05:47):
school property. This is the federal law. Now there's also
a state law, and we obviously have to we have
to follow comply with both. But the federal law says
you cannot have a gun on school property or within
one thousand feet of school property one thousand feet, but
that it has several exceptions to the federal statute. What

(06:11):
of which is if you're on private property not a
part of the school. Well, that makes sense. If my
house is within a thousand feet of a school, ought
to be able to have a gun in my house.
In fact, I'm sure it would be unconstitutional if the
loss of anything other than that another exception out of
the federal statue. There's no such exception or to the
state statue, so don't get too excited. But ut of

(06:31):
the federal statute, it is an exception to the prohibition
of having a gun in a school zone, which includes
everywhere within a thousand feet of a school, if you
are licensed by the state in which the school is
located to carry a gun. So how many times are
you driving down a public street within a thousand feet
of a school? How many times you walking on a

(06:53):
sidewalk within a thousand feet of a school? Well, if
you're carrying a gun, you're technically violating the Gun Free
School zon Zact the federal statue and looking at ten
years in federal prison unless you're licensed. Unless you have
a license to carry handgun, it does not say it's
an exception if you can lawfully carry a handgun under
the law of the state in which you live. In
other words, it doesn't say constitutional carry applies. You have

(07:15):
to have a license. Is that a huge reason to
have a license in Indiana even though you don't have
to have one otherwise? Hell? Yes, it is. Another is
having a handgun in a state park. You can have
a handgun in a state park as long as you
have a license to carry handgun. There is no provision
for having a gun in a state park in Indiana

(07:35):
under constitutional carry. So if you didn't have a license,
you have a handgun in a state park and you're
carrying you believe lawfully under constitutional carry, DNR can throw
you out because you don't have a license to carry
handun So there's still a good reason to have a
licensed to carry. You get pulled over by the police

(07:55):
with a gun in the car, and the police officer
asked you, is there gun in the car, or you
disclose that there's a gun in the car, or the
officer can see the gun. You've got your hunting rifle. Well,
rifle wouldn't apply. You've got a handgun on your hip
that the officer sees. Says, I can't help, but notice

(08:17):
you've got a handgun. Yes, I do. If you have
your license to carry a handgun, that officer knows immediately
you're legal to have that handgun. If you don't have
a license, that officer may need to take some time
there on the side of the road to see if
he can determine or she can determine whether you're lawful
to carry a gun because you're not prohibited by state

(08:38):
or federal law. That takes a little bit of searching,
a little bit of work on the computer. So ten
minute traffic stop may turn into a thirty minute traffic
stop because you don't have a license. So listen. Constitutional
carry is the law of the state of Indiana, and
I pushed very hard for it, and I'm thrilled that
we have it. And you shouldn't have to go to

(08:58):
the government and ask for permission to exercise or right
that you already have. But there are still good reasons
to have a license. Another is is there are certain
other states that give reciprocity to other states and their
residents to be able to carry within those other states

(09:21):
if you have a license or a permit to carry
a handgun issued by your home state. There are thirty
two states that recognize the Indiana license. Now, the significance
of reciprocity granted by those thirty two states is becoming
less and less every year, because there are soon to

(09:42):
be thirty states that have constitutional carry that not only
applies for the residents of those thirty states, but also
applies to non residents. You do the math, there's really
only two states that don't have constitutional carry, but who
regulate or excuse me, who recognize the Indiana license to
carry but the National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act. Yeah, see,

(10:07):
I came full circle, came back to actually talk about that.
I just had to set the stage. We deal with
as far as we're concerned here in Indiana, we deal
with the other eighteen states where we can't currently carry.
There are eighteen states where we cannot carry, either because
they don't have constitutional carry or because they don't recognize
the Indiana license. National Constitutional Carry Reciprocity. The reason the

(10:33):
word constitutional is in there is because it says if
either you have a license or a permit to carry
a handgun issued by your home state, or your home
state allows the carrying of a handgun without a license.
So that applies to those thirty states that have constitutional carry,

(10:53):
that every other state has to allow you to carry
a handgun in those other states as well. That's why
it's constant institutional carrier reciprocity. It's not just requiring every
state to recognize the licenses of every other state. It's
also to allow those citizens from other states that have
constitutional carry to carry in all fifty states. Now I've

(11:16):
always had a little bit of mixed emotion about national reciprocity,
which I'll go into here after we take a break.
And there's a better way in my mind to fix
the problem. But I'm still excited about the prospect of
this potentially passing for purely selfish reasons, and I have
to recognize a little bit of hypocrisy in the process,

(11:39):
which i'll go into here when we come back. You
want to join the discussion. You have a question or
comment about two A related issues, give us a call.
Three one seven two three nine ninety three ninety three.
That's three one seven two three nine ninety three ninety three.
Give us a call. We'll get you on the air.
It says Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy Show on
ninety three WIBC.

Speaker 1 (12:07):
Second to none on this second amendment. This is the
Gun Guy with Guy Ralford on ninety three WYBC.

Speaker 3 (12:17):
Welcome back. I'm Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy Show
on ninety three WIBC. I'll tell you what. Let's go
to the phone lines and let's see here. Joshua has
called with a question. Joshua, welcome to the Gun Guy Show.

Speaker 4 (12:28):
Oh yes, hey, I was just wondering if it is
illegal in the state of Indiana to fire Uh, let's
just say blanks in a parking lot when someone tries
to attack you, or even if it wasn't blinks, But
just wondering if someone physically attacks you on a public
parking lot and you fire a gun in the air,
is that illegal in the state of Indiana.

Speaker 3 (12:49):
Well, potentially, And thanks for your question. I have now
represented I think it's six people. I've had six or
clients over the years who got prosecuted for firing warning shots,
and what they're typically prosecuted for is criminal recklessness with

(13:09):
a deadly weapon. And this is where blanks would be
appreciably different than firing live ammo because the reason there
was a criminal recklessness charge in each of those cases
is because authorities took the position that if those rounds
are fired into the air, those bullets have to come
down somewhere, and when they come down, if it's a

(13:31):
populated area and a typical parking lot would fall in
that category, then whoever's underneath those bullets when they come
down is going to be seriously imperiled. Their safety is
going to be jeopardized by you firing the warning shot.
I've had cases where people fired warning shots into the
ground and they were still prosecuted because authorities took the

(13:52):
position that those rounds could have easily ricocheted depending on
the surface that they're being fired into. And obviously a
parking lot that's paved, the asphalt or concrete or whatever
the substrate may be, there could be that allegation. So
warning shots are a bad idea. Warning shots can get
you prosecuted, not dissimilar to people firing shots and aggressive animals.

(14:17):
I represented multiple clients now that shot or shot at
an aggressive dog, and because it was in a residential area,
then authorities took the position, well, you endangered the kids
playing nearby, or the people in their yard across the street,
or the people in their houses behind where it is

(14:38):
you were shooting so, or in the direction you were shooting.
So warning shots are just a bad idea. I don't
believe in warning shots. Notwithstanding what our former president and
vice president said on that subject. You know, go out
in the balcony and fire to blasts in the air.
You remember that idiot giving really idiotic. So, notwithstanding that boneheaded advice,

(15:04):
warning shots are a bad idea, and it's anesthetical in
my mind to the appropriate use of a gun. To me,
a gun is a last resort to use to end
a threat when it's fully justifiable and when it's required

(15:24):
in your scenario to prevent serious bodily injury to you
or a third person. And that's the general self defense
rules serious bodily injury or also to prevent the commission
of a forcible felony. The rules are different. A lot
of people don't seem to understand this, but the rules
are different in your home, and people tend to sort

(15:45):
of blend these together. But the self defense statutes written
in different sections Section C of thirty one Excuse me
thirty five Dash forty one Dash three Dash two. Section
C talks about self defense wherever you might be, including
in public, including being in a parking lot somewhere to
go to your example. Section D, a different section deals

(16:07):
with the rules in your home, which you're different than
being out in public. So, for instance, you don't have
to be stopping a threat. You don't have to be
stopping or preventing serious bodily injury when you're in your home.
And again, I have a lot of people commenting out
there publicly don't understand this. Where was the threat? There

(16:28):
was no threat? Well, a threat's not's is not what
is required in your home? In your home, you can
use reasonable force, including deadly force, to prevent and yes,
the word prevent is in the statue, or terminate an
unlawful entry into or attack on your dwelling. So you

(16:48):
parse all that together. Can you use deadly force to
prevent an unlawful entry? What you reasonably believe? You don't
have to be right, You just have to have a
reasonable belief. If you have a reasonable belief that deadly
force is necessary to prevent an unlawful entry into your home,
can you use deadly force? Yes, it's right in the statue.

(17:08):
Look it up. Don't take my word for it. Thirty
five dash forty one Dash three TSH two Section D.
And there's no requirement of preventing serious bodily injury. There's
no requirement the person be armed. There's no requirements that
you see a threat to your physical safety. You can
simply defend the sanctity of your home by preventing an
unlawful entry what you reasonably believe to be an unlawful entry.

(17:30):
And so anyway to get back to your real question.
Warning shots are a bad idea. Yes, they can get
you prosecuted. I don't believe in carrying a gun with
blanks that could easily get you shot when you have
no capacity to return fire with live ammunition. Somebody sees
you with a gun, okay, great, they pull their gun.
They're shooting you with real bullets while you've got a

(17:52):
gun with blanks. Bad idea. Guns are not to bluff,
Guns are not to intimidate, Guns are not to win
an argument, not to be a tough guy. And I'm
not picking on you, Joshua, and I'm not suggesting that
you think any of those things at all, not remotely so.
But to just take your question and expound beyond your question.

(18:12):
Carrying a gun with blanks means you're gonna bluff somebody,
You're gonna intimidate somebody. That's not the purpose of a gun.
It's a tool of last resort to prevent serious body
of the entry to you or another innocent person, or
another scenario, to defend your home. And when you start expanding,
when people start expanding the use of guns beyond that
is when they start having legal problems. I'll tell you

(18:34):
what that was A great question from Joshua, and I
appreciate it. Warning shots are hotly debated, but I'll tell
you what. You google this and you'll find people out
There was just a couple of cases that got a
lot of publicity, I believe in Florida last year, within
the last few months, where people are getting prosecuted for
warning shots. So warning shots bad idea and could easily

(18:55):
get you in jail. And again, now did I lose
any of those cases. No, And they were all pled
down to something incredibly minor, like a disorderly conduct or
they were dismissed, so it was not like those people
went to prison, but they still got arrested, they got prosecuted,
they had to hire a lawyer, they had spend a
bunch of money, had to go to court, and it

(19:18):
disrupted their lives substantially. So not a fan of warning
shots and wouldn't recommend them. And I'm glad we had
the question where at the bottom of the arrowlet's take
another break. Great question from Joshua. Join the discussion. Give
us a call. Three one seven two three nine ninety
three ninety three. That's three one seven ninety three ninety three.
Give us a call. We'll get you into the discussion.
This is Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy Show on

(19:39):
ninety three WIBC.

Speaker 1 (19:43):
The show about gun right, gun safety, and responsible gun ownership.
This is the Gun Guy with Guy Ralford on ninety
three WYPC.

Speaker 3 (19:54):
And welcome back to the Gun Guy Show here in
ninety three WIBC. So, I was talking about concealed carry
constitutional carry reciprocity and the fact that we may here
coming up get a vote in the House, and I
also admitted to a little bit of hypocrisy when it

(20:14):
comes to that bill, because listen, I've always been a
small government guy. I've always been a limited federal government guide.
At any time the federal government's trying to expand its powers,
that's generally a bad thing. So what is national concealed
carry or constitutional concealed carry reciprocity. Well, it's the federal

(20:35):
government telling the states what they have to do. And
generally speaking, there's an argument to be said that's a
little inconsistent with the tenth Amendment. But that's where the
fourteenth Amendment comes in. And this is an important argument.
And I've even changed my view on this a bit

(20:57):
after recent discussions with other attorneys who have a focus
on constitutional rights, because one of the things the Fourteenth
Amendment made clear was that one thing it is appropriate
for the federal government to do is to dictate to
the states that they must in fact honor, respect, and

(21:21):
not violate the civil rights protected in the Bill of
Rights or anywhere else in the Constitution, including those rights
like the right to do process and the right the
rights protected in the federal government as applicable to the states.

(21:43):
The federal government can in fact dictate to the states
to do the right thing and follow the damned Constitution.
And in my mind, that's exactly what national constitutional concealed
carry reciprocity would be. It would be telling each state,
including those eighteen states that currently refuse to honor the

(22:06):
Indianna licensed to carry handgun, to where I cannot legally
carry my handgun in those states. It's telling them, no,
the Second Amendment doesn't have geographic boundaries. There's no reason
why I have a right to bear arms up and
to an including driving through tera Hoad, but the second

(22:27):
is across the state line into Illinois, that right disappears.
What other civil right do we treat that way? Even
in the old Bergerfeldt decision that said that every state
has to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. You think, wow,
what the hell does that have to do is Second
Amendment rights? Well, actually, the concept espoused in that decision.

(22:53):
It said not only that marriage is a right that
does extend to same sex couples, and the Supreme Court
had to get a little creative and creating a right
to marry out of the constitution. But okay, I'm okay
with that. I don't think the government should necessarily be
involved in the decision of people to get married. But okay.

(23:15):
But they went on to say that if a state
issues a marriage license to a couple, every other state
has to recognize that marriage license. And I said, it
would be ridiculous if you were married in one state
and simply crossed into another state that didn't recognize your
marriage license and suddenly we're no longer married. Well, how
is that logic any different there from the Supreme Court

(23:37):
in that obergerfeld decision. If my marriage should be valid
not only in the state that issued my marriage license,
but in every other state, why is my license to
carry not treated with the same respect. Because, oh, by
the way, the Supreme Court, and getting a little creative,
came up with a right to marry and the Constitution.

(23:58):
But it sure as hell not the bill rights like
the Second Amendment is that's called out specifically. If I
have a specifically enumerated right, the right to keep in
bare arms and bear meats, carry and by definition a
right guaranteed to me by the US Constitution, how does
that constitutional right end when I cross the line into Illinois?

(24:22):
How does that work? And the justification for that historically
has been, well, every state, you know, has an inherent
right to pass its own safety regulations, and if they
don't like the requirements it takes to get a license
in some other state, they don't have to respect and
honor that license within their boundaries. Well, okay, but they're

(24:46):
basically telling me that I can't exercise a constitutionally protected right.
I can't square that. That's completely inconsistent to me. So
to me, even though yes it's big brother in the
form of the federal government telling the states what to do,
is completely consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment that says the
federal government can tell the states to honor constitutional rights,

(25:08):
and in this case, it's the Second Amendment right, so
I'm okay with it. I would like it even better
if we had an equivalent of the Obergafel decision on
same sex marriage, if we had exactly the same decision
that came out of the Supreme Court as to licenses
to carry under the Second Amendment. The logic of Obergefell
applies perfectly to a concealed carry case or a license

(25:31):
to carry case, and I would love to see I
would love to the Supreme Court to do it rather
than the Congress to do it, because what Congress giveth,
Congress can taketh away. I like to have a constitutional
amendment in the form of the Second Amendment enforced by
the Supreme Court to be the basis of that decision.
That would make me happy. But in the meantime, if

(25:52):
and when Congress gets back to its normal business, I
truly hope that the National Reciprocity Bill is something they
take up, pass on to the Senate, and then we
start working on getting sixty votes in the Senate. I
would like to see this done in my lifetime. Constitutional
carry here in Indiana was a huge priority, and I
think national reciprocity is a similar priority. On a national level.

(26:15):
Let's move on a little bit. I read and I
talked about this just briefly with Hammer and Nigel on
Monday Gundeck this past week. But I saw figures that
came out from NSSF. That's the National Shooting Sports Foundation,
that is the industry trade group representing the firearms industry,
including ranges, gun shops, gun manufacturers, et cetera. It's funny,

(26:40):
you know, the anti gun people are always wanting to
criticize NRAs. Oh, it's just a mouthpiece for the gun industry. No,
it's not. In NRA is grassroots. NSSF is the mouthpiece
for the firearms industry, and they do great work, and
they do a lot of safety oriented work. You know,
the free locks that you see distributed as part of

(27:01):
gun sales, A lot that whole program was started by NSSF,
and they supplied a ton of those locks at in
the early stages of that program, before the manufacturer started
doing it as well. But NSF does some great work.
They came out with some numbers that I thought were interesting,
which were in October. So just this past month, there

(27:23):
were something like one point three million background checks for
the purchase of a new gun and I thought that
was interesting because those numbers are comparable, very close to
record numbers that were set when people were concerned that
Hillary Clinton was going to become president, and then later

(27:44):
when people were concerned that Joe Biden was going to
become president. But these happened in October of twenty twenty five,
only one year into the Trump presidency. So you can
understand why if somebody's worried about a Hillary Clinton presidency,
which would have just been death for the Second Amendment.

(28:06):
The three justices through the Supreme Court that Donald Trump
nominated and then we're confirmed all strong on Second Amendment.
You imagine if Hillary Clinton had a point of those
three justices, where we'd be on the Second Amendment right now.

(28:26):
I shuddered to think that would have been absolute disaster,
absolute disaster, if she had the ability to nominate those
justices and if there were the votes in the Senate
to get them through. So people were concerned obviously at
the time, and bought a whole bunch of guns, But

(28:47):
a similar number of guns were sold October of twenty
twenty five. We got three more years of a Trump presidency.
Why were so many guns sold just last month that's
what I'll go into. If you have a theory that yourself,
give us a call, or if you have any other
questions to a related issues, give us a call. Join
the discussion. Three one seven two three nine ninety three,

(29:08):
ninety three. Right now, we're going to take a break,
but give us a call. Three one seven, ninety three,
ninety three. This is Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy
Show on ninety three WIBC.

Speaker 1 (29:20):
Your Rights, your responsibilities, your guns. This is the Gun
Guy with Guy Ralford on ninety three WIBC.

Speaker 3 (29:30):
And welcome back on Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy
Show on ninety three WIBC. So one point three million
applications for new gun sales, and that doesn't necessarily mean
those are new gun owners. This could be somebody going
back and buying their forty third gun. So you don't
quite know how many new gun owners there are, but

(29:53):
it's a it's a big number for monthly sales. And
question because why is that when it's not an election year.
I mean, yeah, we got midterms coming up next year.
You could see a difference in particularly in the House
of Representatives. Potentially there's some risk that Republicans will lose

(30:15):
control but trumpets to be in the White House, and
and a shift in Congress, well incredibly significant, wouldn't be
as scary as what would have happened had Hillary been elected,
for instance, particularly if Republicans also lost control in both

(30:39):
the Senate and the House. And so what's the explanation
for a large number of gun sales? Well, I don't know,
and this is this is going to be speculation on
my part. But one thing that occurred to me is
that I harkened back to a poll that I just
saw recently. In fact, I'm i mentioned this I think

(31:02):
also on Hammer and Nigel, and that is an incredibly
large number. This is a New York Post poll and
I saw an article that came out on November third,
So you google this, you can find it. And it
said that today thirty three percent of young Americans believe
political violence can be justified in certain cases. Political violence

(31:26):
can be justified in certain cases. And this is this
is a poll taken since the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
It's a poll taken since the two assassination attempts on
President Trump. And you've got a third of people what
they call young Americans. I'm not sure what particularly demographic

(31:47):
is involved. There are saying, well, that's okay in some cases,
and that's completely consistent with what we see out there
on social media in terms of people not just okay
with or excusing, for instance, the assassination of Charlie Kirk,

(32:11):
but celebrating it, overtly celebrate, proud to celebrate it, crowing
about it on social media. And when the rest of
us see those things and we see what appeared to
be a continuing call for violence from a very large
segment of society, it's invariably coming from the left. You

(32:35):
can certainly see something from the other side as well.
But where you see that many more people talking about violence,
and where we see extreme examples of that, like an
assassination of someone like Charlie Kirk, it makes a lot
of people say, wow, you know, is there a potential
for me to get caught up in the middle of that.
And that's something that's a little different than you know,

(32:56):
typical street crime. I mean, to break in in your house,
something a lot of people want to be prepared for.
Obviously a carjacking, street crime, there are any number of
other instances when you want to be able to defend
yourself being out in public, and like the hero Eli
Dicken that I represented, who stopped a mass shooting in
the Greenwood Park Mall, you know a lot of people say, hey,

(33:17):
I don't expect to be caught up in an event
like that in my lifetime, but I want to be
prepared to defend myself in others if it happens. And
thank god Elili was prepared and capable and equipped to
save all those lives in the Greenwood Park Mall in
twenty twenty two. But I think what's impacting a lot

(33:38):
of people because I think it may it may have
been more subconscious even until I read about that poll.
Is it even affected me to some degree? I just
see more and more calls for violence and more more
and more people obviously okay with violence, more and more
people celebrating violence, an awful lot of those people celebrating violence, calling.

Speaker 4 (33:58):
For more.

Speaker 3 (34:01):
And believing it's okay to be violent and to even
murder those people they simply disagree with. Politically, I guarantee
an awful lot of those people who are totally comfortable
with violence in that scenario disagree with me. And it
is ironic that there are people out there and this
has certainly happened to me in the past. I've had

(34:22):
two bomb threats, now bomb scares at my office where
poor Carmel Fire Department and police department have had to respond,
where somebody's calling it a bomb threat to my office.
And you know, there have been other threats of violence
out of which I take seriously, and I think it's
all cowards behind phones. But it's a little bit ironic.

(34:44):
People are threatening violence against me when they're upset that
I advocate for Second Amendment rights. I really hate that
you advocate for Second Amendment rights. Someone should shoot you.
I'm sorry. There's a little bit of irony in that,
if not a hypocrisy as well. But in all seriousness,

(35:06):
when you see those things, there's a little part of
you that says, you know what, society in general, today's
American culture in general seems to be more violent and
more violent, not just with the street criminals and the
thugs and the rapists and the gang bangers and those
people we've always had to worry about, but now people

(35:29):
that are kind with their own political agenda think it's
okay to be violent as well, and so many of
us are going to look at that and say, you
know what, I want to be able to defend myself.
I wanted to be able to defend myself, my family
and my home. Do I think that's contributing to a
great big number in a off political year. I think
that's some informed speculation. That's exactly what it is. Tell

(35:51):
it right now, we're coming up on the top of
the hour, so we're taking a break. I'll be back
with you for hour number two here in just a bit.
This is Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy Show on
ninety three WYBC.

Speaker 1 (36:04):
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 (36:19):
Boom boom boom boom bang bang bang bang boom, boom, boom, boom,
bang bang boom, Guy Ralphord on ninety three WYBC.

Speaker 3 (36:33):
Welcome back to our number two with the Gun Guys
Show here in ninety three WYBC. I'll tell you if
if you don't adequately feel gratitude for having a Second
Amendment in this country and for having national organizations like

(36:54):
the Second Amendment Foundation and NRA and Gun Owners of
America and Freedom Policy Coalition who are out there fighting
in the courtrooms and here locally, the two A project
that are fighting in the legislature for your Second Amendment rights.
If you ever want to feel a little more gratitude

(37:17):
toward what we have here in Indiana when it comes
to gun rights, man, take a look at what's going
on just over the border to the north in Canada,
and it just shows you what a slippery slope really
looks like when it comes to gun rights when you
don't have the constitutional protections that we have here in

(37:37):
the United States. And that's exactly what the pro gun
lobby has been warning of here in the US, that
it's a slippery slope. And folks that say, oh, well,
we just want to require a registration of these evil
so called assault weapons, and then well, we just want
to buy back some of the worst kinds of weapons,

(38:00):
and then oh well, we just want to require a
license to be able to purchase a gun and or
to have a gun in your home, any kind of gun,
and and we just want common sense gun regulation. And
nobody wants to infringe on any rights, and nobody wants
to come take your guns and nobody wants to confiscate.

(38:20):
I mean all the denials and all the characterizations of
this just reasonable, common sense restrictions on Second Amendment rights
for this for the sake of safety and public safety
and for the safety of the children. I mean, all
the protestations and all the excuses and rationalizations that we hear,

(38:45):
it's really a very obvious attempt for things to just
ratchet in one direction and for them to get any
victory they can to restrict rights in any way they
can and then go on to the next battle and
try to get the next restriction. And but for the

(39:06):
Second Amendment, and but for the kind of strong advocacy
groups that we have out there fighting for you and
I as the individual gun owner, things could be dramatically different.
And that's exactly what's going on in Canada. Canada. Do
they start banning guns, Yes, they start restricting. They started

(39:28):
with registration of so called assault weapons, and then they
prevented the further sale or importation. And now they've announced
an actual buy back program, a mandatory buy back program

(39:49):
for so called assault weapons, and they're just figuring out
how to implement it. And this is mandatory buy back,
what's that mean, what's mandatory if I back that is
a euphemism for confiscation. Yeah, there may be a government
check involved for who knows how much money. I think

(40:12):
the government came and wanted to hand me a check
for each one of my rifles that they would call
on a sault weapon. Do I think I'd get anywhere
close to I have invested in those rifles. I'm sure
I would not. I'm gonna say, you spend how much
on that optic, you spend how much to sbr that

(40:32):
to put a suppressor on it? But it's confiscation, and
it's really pretty amazing to me, and it's really worth
spending a little time on the computer and look at
exactly what's going on in Australia, look at what's going
on in Canada, Look what has gone on for generation
now in the UK. That's what happens when we don't

(40:55):
have a Second Amendment. I mentioned it only because it
makes me grateful for what we do have here in
the United States, in the form of the Second Amendment,
Article one, section thirty two of the Indiana Constitution, which
guarantees the right of the people to keep in bare
arms and for advocacy groups again here locally the two
A project Nationally Firearms Policy Coalition, which is not to

(41:17):
be confused with Indiana Firearms Coalition Indiana Firearms Coalition. Let
me just throw a little warning out there, that's the
door brothers. They are scam artists. I've never seen them
in the legislature, not once ever. They want to take
credit for things they have nothing to do with. They
want to blame true pro To eight legislators for anything

(41:38):
that they don't like, and they haven't seen accomplished yet.
They call everybody rhinos and sellouts, and it's all just
for fundraising. They don't actually do anything. I've been going
over to the state House. I've spent hundreds of hours
in the state House fighting for Second Amendment rights for Hoosiers.
I've written bills a dozen now that have passed that
are part of Indiana law that promote and protect Second

(42:00):
Amendment rights. And I've never seen these people in the
state House. So the National Group Firearms Firearms Policy Coalition FPC,
Great Solid Indiana Firearms Coalition scam artists, scam artists, scam artists.
Do not give them your money, do not give them

(42:21):
your time a day. But we have strong organizations Gun
Owners of America's Second Amendment Foundation NRA, and the NRA
is coming back NRA with a new set of leadership,
new board of directors. We've got three Hoosiers now on
the board of directors of NRA. They're helping turn that
organization around. But we've got strong advocacy groups, and we've

(42:43):
got the Second Amendment. We've got Article one, Section thirty two.
And if you ever feel the need to just be
a bit thankful for what we do have, we get
frustrated things don't happen as fast as we'd like. Should
we have national reciprocity, Yes, Should we have a Supreme
Court ruling protecting things like are some of the automatic
rifles that are getting banned in some states, including right

(43:04):
next door in Illinois. Yeah, we should have more protections
than we currently have. But man, we've got a lot
of people out there fighting, fighting for us, and we've
got the Second Amendment to rely on, and I just
want to reinforce it. Sometimes we shouldn't take for granted
what we really do have here in terms of gun rights.
I'll tell it. We've had Terry call in, and Terry,

(43:25):
I believe has a question. So Terry, Welcome to the
Gun Guy Show.

Speaker 5 (43:30):
Hey, guy man, I want to tell you I'm a
longtime a listener. I love your show, listening every weekend
when I can. I'm a little off topic, and I
apologize for this, and you may have covered this before,
but I have a question. I live in a rural
Tip and Canoe County, and I shoot a lot in
my woods in my backyard, and I always have wondered

(43:54):
about like regulations and laws on burms and the safety
is of doing this in the rural areas. I remember
a few years ago some guys got into trouble shooting
in Boone County, as I recall, because it wasn't safe
and stuff ricochet and that sort of thing. Is that
a county to county restriction or are there any like

(44:17):
strict laws as to how you can shoot safely in
rural areas?

Speaker 3 (44:23):
Yeah? No, generally speaking, Terry and Drew, it's a great question.
Generally speaking, there can be some local restrictions, but they're
limited on what they can pass locally. Because of the
Firearms Preemption Act, we have limits what local governments can
do at the city and county level to restrict the
use of firearms. So they're they're pretty limited, but there

(44:47):
can be some some local regulations. Sometimes local county commissioners
or city councils, town councils try to pass some ordinates
that we have to go in and fight, and we've
done that around this date, but it can be a
little bit local. So it is worth checking, for the
most part, if it's your own property and if you

(45:08):
are are taking care to not let any projectiles leave
the property. I mean, that's the biggest thing. And I've
represented right now, I'm representing multiple clients, gosh, four or
five right now that are being prosecuted because they were
shooting on their own property, but authorities are alleging that
rounds left their property, you know, hit a neighbor's house

(45:29):
or otherwise left the property and endangered other people. And
they're getting prosecuted for criminal recklessness with a deadly weapon.
And that's a big deal. And then we're into the
whole forensic analysis trying to prove scientifically that those rounds
didn't come from those people's rifles or it was physically
impossible for those rounds to have reached those locations. And

(45:53):
that's just a process. You don't want to get caught
up in But if you're essentially for the most part,
if you're in the country, you're outside any city limits,
you're on your own property, and you're taking care to
make sure no rounds are leaving your property. You can
shoot on your own property if if you want to.
And in fact, there are even some zoning decisions out
there where local zoning boards said, hey, wait a minute,
if you're on your property that's zoned residential or zoned agricultural,

(46:16):
and you built a house on it, and people try
to the local the county, for instance, the zoning board
tries to stop you from shooting because you're not zoned
for a shooting range quote unquote. There are a couple
of Court of Appeals decisions from Indiana that say, hold
on if it's zoned for residential. One of the one
of the reasons some people like living in the country
is so they can shoot on their own property. They

(46:38):
can target shoot, they can hunt, and and it's a
normal and incidental, uh secondary use of residential property or
agricultural property to shoot on your own damn property. And
and and the local zoning board for instance, can't come
after you. Say in you're you're you've got you set
up a quote unquote shooting range on your own property,
or you use your property as shooting and it's not

(47:01):
zoned for that, so you can't engage in that activity
on your own property. And and those that's been stricken down.
And so for the most part, the laws on your side.
I would see if if you can check the local
ordinances just to make sure that there's not something out
there they've passed trying to restrict you. But the biggest
issue is just making absolutely sure whether it's a burm,

(47:24):
whether it's you know, shooting down from an elevated position
down you know, into a valley or a goalie or
a ditch or whatever it might be, that there's no
physical way for rounds to leave the property, because that's
where people get in a lot of trouble. But it's
a great question, Terry, and we're glad you called and
glad you asked it. Be like Terry joined the discussion.

(47:45):
Give us a call. Three one seven two ninety three,
ninety three. Right now we're taking a break. This Guy
Ralford on The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WYBC.

Speaker 1 (47:56):
Now you've got a gun guy, Guy Ralford on ninety
three w YBC.

Speaker 3 (48:04):
And welcome back. I'm Guy Ralford on the Gun Guy
Show on ninety three w IBC. Just had somebody send
me a link that is talking about national concealed constitutional
carry reciprocity, and it was a link to an article
discussing the fact that the Gifford Center, and you remember

(48:28):
former representative against Gabby Gifford's was the victim of an
assassination attempt. I believe in Arizona. She was horribly injured
in a shooting and has largely recovered. I think she
still has some effects that she has to battle through,

(48:49):
and so I mean, everybody involved, you know, praying for
her recovery. But as soon as she became active again,
she decided that and and I could certainly rationalize this
having been a victim of a horrific shooting and receiving
a very bad entry shew me sladery shot in the head,

(49:10):
as well as other places, as I recall, she then
formed a gun control group they call the Giffert Center,
and they're very active. They're out there with you know,
Mom's Demand Action and every Town for Gun Safety and
Mayor's Against the Illegal Guns and the other Bloomberg groups.

(49:31):
But she's shouldered to shoulder with them and trying to
restrict gun rights. And one thing that the Gifford's Center
they're trying to do, and which I've never really understood,
is trying to restrict law abiding citizens from carrying guns.
And they've been out there, like Mom's Demand Action, fighting
for more and more restrictions on who and where people

(49:53):
can carry guns. And the only somebody sent me was
from Bearing Arms. And it's a it's a good website.
It's something I keep an eye on. They have a
lot of good articles things going on in other states,
other locations, but this article is somebody was at the
Giffert Center put out some data now that national concealed

(50:14):
constitutional carry reciprocity may get some action in Congress. They
put out a bunch of old information from twenty eighteen,
last time Congress was looking at national reciprocity. There were
some polls conducted specifically with law enforcement to see what
law enforcement had to say about whether we should have

(50:34):
national reciprocity. And they went to a lot of elected
or appointed police chiefs in big cities and some other
I would call bureaucrats in law enforcement, and took somewhat
of a poll, I'm sure with their thumb on the
scale of how cops feel about national reciprocity. And I

(50:56):
had some deja vous looking at this article during the
break just now. It reminded me a lot of what
we went through with constitutional carry, because if you recall
the people who opposed constitutional carr here in Indiana, they
came out and said, and a lot of the politicians
who opposed us on this, even some quote unquote Republicans
like Liz Brown, chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate,

(51:19):
oh well, I'm only opposing this because law enforcement opposes it.
And the argument, just like Gifford is making here for
national reciprocity, is that law enforcement is some monolithic group
that is universal in their opinion, and they all oppose
in this case, constitutional carry reciprocity or in our case,
constitutional carry here in Indiana. And let me tell you,

(51:42):
it's always a scam. It's a scam when the Gifford
Center is doing it now. It was a scam when
Gifford Center did it eight years ago, and it was
a scam when people were relying on law enforcement opposition
quote unquote to oppose constitutional carry because it depends on
who you are. For instance, when we had a hearing

(52:03):
in the Public Policy Committee in the House in twenty
twenty two, when we finally got constitutional carry passed, we
had more cops that came in to support constitutional carry
than came in to oppose it. And it was really
noticeable who came in to support constitutional carry and who
came in to oppose it. And this is perfectly reflected

(52:27):
in this article where the Effort Center is talking about
law enforcement quote unquote opposing reciprocity because the political appointees,
the police chiefs from big cities, and we had police
chiefs come in from Fort Wayne and South ben and Bloomington,
and we had i believe an assistant chief from IMPD
that came in. These aren't rank and file, he's are

(52:50):
bureaucrast he's a political appointees. And they came in doing
what their bosses and city government wanted them to do,
which was opposed the rights of everyday America and in
this case, every day who's yours to carry a handgun.
But when you talk to the individual rank and file officers,
in fact, when you look at what thefterronal order or

(53:11):
police on behalf of their members representing the rank and file.
They're universal in saying passing new laws won't make people safer.
Passing new laws won't make there be less crime. We
need to lock up violent criminals and keep them walked up.
That's what the FOP has been saying for years. I
know we have FOP President Rick Snyder on my show.

(53:32):
He just came on with Hammer and Nigel, where I
was co hosting yesterday on Hammer and Nigel and the
rank and file police officers. And the other is county sheriffs.
County sheriffs are somewhat unique in law enforcement because they're
elected directly by the residents of their county. County sheriffs

(53:55):
have allegiances to two things, Constitution and the people who
live in their county, the voters in their county, the
citizens in their county. They're not the same kind of
political animals appointed by other bureaucrats. The police chiefs are

(54:21):
and county sheriff after county sheriff came in to support
Constitutional Care and they said what we're I think you
talk about common sense. They came in and said very
common sense things like we can't be everywhere, we have
a response time to any given crime scene, and if
citizen ought to be able to be their own first responder,

(54:43):
and they ought to be in a position to have
their capacity to defend themselves and their family, and as
law enforcement, we support that. And I heard that over
and over again. But this total scam was perpetrated by
the gun control group and the people wanting to restrict
the rights of law abiding citizens. To say law enforcement
as some monolithic block stood up to oppose constitutional carry

(55:08):
and listen, some were very vocal. My friend Doug Carter,
and I respect Doug Carter, and I consider him a
good friend today. But man Doug would come in and
testify and committee against constitutional carry, I'd be in there
to testify for it. We would shake hands and give
it to a little man hug beforehand, and we'd shake
hands afterwards, and in between we call each other everything

(55:29):
but honest, because we couldn't disagree about that more and
more passionately. Doug was passionately against it, I was passionately
for it, and we went after each other pretty hard,
and we remain friends through that, which gives me some
faith that yes, you can disagree with somebody politically and
still shake their hand and consider them a friend. But yes,

(55:54):
there were some passionate people in law enforcement against it,
but it was not universal. It was not certainly my
on aolithic and in fact, a very large presence of
law enforcement officers supported us completely. And it's cool because
bearing arms this website, they wrote an article they call
out the Giffords on this. In fact, they then interviewed

(56:15):
some other police officers that won giffardgs is relying on
eight year old data and even posted some so called
studies that with links that if you go to the
links that they don't even they're not even good connections anymore.
But I just I wanted to harken back to constitutional
carry and say, man, when you talk to the cops
on the street, the rank and file, and the county sheriffs,
you'll get a dramatically different view when it comes to

(56:35):
gun control or the rights of common citizens to have
the capacity and the ability to defend themselves in their families.
That's something that I've seen per firsthand, and I always
want to call BS when I see BS Tayward at
the bottom of the hour, we're taking a break, give
us a call. Join the discussion. Three one seven two
three nine ninety three ninety three. We're taking a breaks.
Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WYBC.

Speaker 1 (57:02):
Now you've got a gun guy, Guy Ralford on ninety
three WYPC.

Speaker 3 (57:10):
And welcome back. I'm Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy
Show on ninety three WIBC.

Speaker 2 (57:15):
Tey what.

Speaker 3 (57:15):
I just got a private message on Facebook from someone
who's listening to the program, and they were talking about
something I said in response to Joshua's question. Joshua had
asked me, I think about warning shots, and I got
into when you can and can't use force, including deadly force.

(57:36):
And I was talking about the difference between the castle
doctrine and the general rules of self defense and apply
outside the home, because those come from different sections of
the Indiana Self Defense Statute. And a message says says Guy,
I'm not sure you're correct. I've always heard, including from
police officers, that the castle doctrine only applies once someone

(57:59):
has crossed the threshold of your home. Isn't that true?
I think what you said is incorrect. Okay, all right,
fair enough, that's from John, and no, John, I'm not
incorrect on this, and in fact, I invite you to
just put this right into your old Google machine right
now thirty five dash forty one dash three dash two

(58:23):
and go to section D. And that's the Castle doctrine.
And what it says is and you want to look
for the word prevent. It says a person is justified
in using reasonable force, including deadly force, and does not
have a duty to retreat. That's what also makes it

(58:45):
a stand your ground law in addition to being the
castle doctrine. And that says if the person reasonably believes
that that force and they're talking about deadly force is necessary,
and then it says to prevent event or terminate an
unlawful entry of or attack on their dwelling. Goes on

(59:08):
to talk about curtilage, which is the area outside your
home where you still have an expectation of privacy. So
we're not even talking about curtilage yet, or occupied motor vehicle,
we're not talking about that. Let's just talk about dwelling again,
a whole nother discussion about curtilage, which actually applies outside
your home, but just talking about the castle doctrine. And

(59:31):
you're dwelling specifically if what you said John was true,
and the castle doctrine only applies, meaning you can only
use deadly force once someone has crossed the threshold of
your home. Then the word prevent wouldn't have been in
the statue. The word prevent in the statute is what
makes you wrong and me right. And I'm not saying

(59:53):
that to be high handed about it. I'm just responding
to your comment that you sure I'm wrong because you've
heard for a long time, including from police officers, or
someone must cross the threshold of your home. Now again,
I'm not advocating for the use of force in any
form here. It's not my point. I'm talking about what's
legally justified in Indiana. What's legally justified Indiana. It requires

(01:00:15):
a reasonable belief. You don't have to be right. You
just have to have a reasonable belief that you're preventing
an unlawful entry. The word preventing would be completely superfluous
and useless in the statute if it didn't apply before

(01:00:36):
someone had actually crossed the threshold of your home. Otherwise
it would only have used the word terminate. It doesn't
say only. It doesn't say you can terminate an unlawful
entry once they've entered. It doesn't just say that. It
says you can prevent or terminate an unlawful entry. So
the word prevent is what makes me right and why

(01:00:56):
I'm one hundred percent confident in that interpretation of the statute.
Indiana law is very very clear on that, and a
lot of people don't understand that. And the other point
that people don't seem to understand is that because they
want to blend together Section C and con Section D
of the statue. Section C is what requires you to
believe you're preventing serious bodily injury to you or a

(01:01:16):
third person, or what's called the commission of a forcible felony.
A forcible felony is a felony committed to the use
or threat of force, or in which there's a substantial
likelihood of injury to a human being. So what's a
forcible felony? Well armed robbery, rape, any number of felonies

(01:01:40):
are committed to the use or threat of force or
in which there's a danger of injury to a human
But the fearing or reasonably believing that you're preventing serious
bodily injury is the requirement in Section C. That's not
a requirement in the castle doctrine. It's not part of it.
You don't have to see a threat, you don't have
to see a weapon, you don't have to fear for

(01:02:00):
your life or fear for your your safety and health.
You just have to be in your according to your
reasonable belief. You have to be preventing or terminating an
unlawful entry. That's the wording of the statute. And and
there is And I understand why people are asking about this,
and I understand why people are debating this, because there's
a lot of discussion on this right now generally. But

(01:02:23):
that's what the laws says. Don't believe me. Look it up.
Thirty fivesh forty one desk three dosh two Subsection D.
It's right there. You can read it for yourself. Tell
you what, we're a little bit before the quarter hour.
Let's go ahead and take a break here, we'll come
back and we'll wrap up this edition of The Gun
Guy Show here on ninety three WYBC.

Speaker 1 (01:02:45):
He's a Second Amendment attorney, he's an NRA certified Firearms instructor.
He's the gun Guy Guy Ralford on ninety three WYPC.

Speaker 3 (01:02:58):
And welcome back for the last segment here of The
Gun Guy Show. Here on ninety three WIBC something else.
You know, I mentioned, uh, looking at what's going on
in Canada and Australia in the UK and being glad
for our Second Amendment, something that makes me extraordinarily glad
to live in Indiana and to have the gun laws

(01:03:20):
that we have here. I've said it over and over.
If you listen to the Gun Guy show, I'm sure
you've heard me say it before. I'll take Indiana's gun
laws over virtually any other law in state, any other
state in the country. And you know, and for some reason,
people always want to talk about Texas. Texas is so
pro gun. Texas has a lot of restrictions on gun
rights that I would never want to see here in Indiana,
Like the if a business owner puts a particular sign

(01:03:43):
up in the door that says no gun's allowed, then
it's a crime to carry a gun into that into
that business, you can't stop and have a beer and
you're way home from work if you're carrying your gun,
because it's illegal to go into a place that serves
alcohol or to consume any alcohol while you carrying a gun.
I treat carrying a gun just like I do having beers.

(01:04:06):
If I wouldn't be comfortable driving a car based on
how many beers I'm going to drink, then I don't carry.
But that has a much bigger impact on how much
beer I drink than how much I carry, because I
don't want to give up my Second Amendment right, and
and and and and and I it's ridiculous to me

(01:04:29):
that I I have to disarm myself. I can't even
have one in my car if I'm gonna stop and
have a beer on the way home. That's ridiculous. How
does that mean it's smart to go out and get
drunk while you're carrying a gun? Of course not, And
that's not my point. My point is you can be
responsible and enjoy a beer and still carry your gun,
just like you can enjoy a beer and drive home

(01:04:52):
and within limits. Is totally legal and responsible, And yeah,
individuals citizens of the United States, law abiding citizens, ought
to have the ability to exercise a little personal responsibility.
So I would take our gun laws over any other states.

(01:05:12):
Texas has included. That's just a couple of examples of
restrictions in Texas, and that and many other states have
very similar laws. So we don't have here in Indiana,
I'm glad we don't. But one law we have in Indiana
that I am eternally thankful for and even more so
reading an article as somebody sent me here recently about
what's going on in Savannah, Georgia. But it makes me

(01:05:32):
very glad we have in Indiana here what's called a
preemption law. And I mentioned this in response to a
person who called in asking about shooting on their property
and about they're asking, you know, is that typically like
a local ordinance and regulation that's going to restrict that?
And I said, well, local governments are greatly restricted here
in Indiana and what local ordinances or regulations they can

(01:05:53):
pass because of our firearms preemption law. And this is
a big one, and I've filed multiple law suits over
this in the past. In fact, I filed the first
lawsuit in the state immediately after it went into effect
back then, I want to say, twenty eleven. But what

(01:06:13):
does the Indiana Firearms Preemption Law say? It says that
outside certain exceptions, you have to look at the exceptions
that are in section four of the statute. But Section
one says local governments, that is, cities, towns, townships, counties,
what they call political subdivisions. That's units of government below

(01:06:35):
the state level, So that applies to airport authorities, housing authorities,
different units of local government below the state level. Cannot
regulate firearms, it says, cannot regulate firearms, ammunition, or firearms accessories.
And then it gets more specific, and it says including,
and it talks about the sale, transfer, carrying, possession, taxation,

(01:06:59):
commerce in and they give a bunch of specific examples.
But there's a broad prohibition just says they can't regulate firearms.
Now there are exceptions. For instance, it says, an exception
is that a local government can restrict firearm prohibit firearms
in a building that contains the courtroom. Okay, all right,

(01:07:20):
they can. A local government can have zoning laws that
affect all businesses equally, and if they also happen to
apply to businesses that, for instance, sell firearms, so be it.

(01:07:41):
As long as they applied all businesses regularly or equally. Okay,
all right, makes sense. And a local government can prohibit
the open display of a firearm at a public meeting.
That's an interesting one. So you're a local town council
if they have public meetings, if they're not in a building,

(01:08:02):
that contains a courtroom. They can't tell you you can't
bring your gun in, but they can tell you can't
openly display it. Okay, but you get past those exceptions,
and they are really very limited. Local governments can't prohibit
the possession carrying of firearms, can't regulate those things. And
that's huge. And we've had a whole bunch of whiny

(01:08:23):
mayors and city councilors and town councilors, county commissioners get
really whiny about this over the years because they want
to pass local restrictions. The mayor of Bloomington, I think
there's been a couple different mayors of Bloomington since this
went into effect. So, oh, we can't prohibit firearms at
our local swimming pool. This is ridiculous. Well, what if

(01:08:46):
somebody wants to come in and commit a crime in
your local swimming pool? You think they're they're going to
not come in and commit that crime because you've got
to sign on the door that says, per local ordnance,
firearms are prohibited. What's the last time a mass shooter
looked at a sign that says you could get find
five hundred dollars if you bring a gun to the
swimming pool. So a mass shooter whose plan is to
kill as many people as possible and then eat a bullet,

(01:09:09):
it's gonna suddenly say, Wow, I don't want to get
fined five hundred dollars, I'd better leave my gun at home.
Of course, not. Local regulations don't do anything but affect
law abiding citizens because we actually care about getting fined
whatever it might be. So local regulations don't do anything
to keep anybody safe. For this restrict law abiding citizens.

(01:09:30):
And what's going on in Savannah is they pass the
law that puts requirements on you. If you're going to
have a gun in your car, you're going to leave
a gun in your car, it's got to be locked
up in a safe. Well, look, i've got a safe
in my car. I've got two. I've got one for
rifles in the trunk, and i've got one for other
valuables including holds, a couple of handguns and my binoculars

(01:09:51):
and whatever else I want to leave in it. That
mounts in the back seat, and it's mounted in there permanently.
It's not going anywhere. So I do that because that's
my choice as someone who's responsible with his firearms. Do
I think the local government should tell me about how
I need to leave my gun in my car? No?
And could they do that here locally? They passed that

(01:10:14):
ordinance in Savannah. Now it was found to be unconstitutional
there in Georgia, and the mayor said he doesn't care.
They're going to enforce it anyway. And I'm looking at
how that fights unfolding, and I think, thank God I
live in Indiana. We don't have to fight that battle.
And that's one more way where I'm thankful for the

(01:10:35):
great laws we have here. That's it for this week's
edition to The Gun Guy Show. You hope you enjoy it.
I hope you come back and remember I always shoot safe.
I always shoot straight and be safe. This is Guy
Ralford on The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WYBC