The Gun Guy - Full Show - 11/22/2025

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 Guy.

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

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

Speaker 3 (00:31):
Ed, good afternoon, and welcome to the Gun Guy Show
here on ninety three WYBC. We're thrilled that you are
with us. I'll tell you it right off the bat.
I want to give a huge thank you to producer
Kevin who's here in the studio. If you listen to
WIBC during the week, you know Kevin Well. He's the
producer of the Kendall and Casey Show. So here, this
guy puts in a whole week of a full time

(00:54):
job and then is willing to come in and help
us out. We're kind of between producers here, between I
mean Ethan Hatcher's show Saturday Night on the Circle and
my show. We're kind of transitioning. And in the meantime
here full time producer during the week not only works
full time but has to put up with Rob Kendall

(01:14):
for all those hours during the week, and Kevin, you're
willing to come in here and help us out during
the gun Guy show man, thank you so much. It's
a pleasure to be here, absolutely. And there is a
lot to get into, I'll tell you what. And I
posted a couple of different topics I am going to
get into tonight and a couple of things that I

(01:35):
found fascinating. But right off the bat, I was looking
at social media and someone else posted a link to
a Washington Post article, and right off the bat, I
typically start rolling my eyes when it comes to the
Washington Post. If there is a liberal publication out there

(01:59):
in terms of print slash internet, Washington Post is right
up there in my mind with like MSNBC and any
number of others. And as you might guess, they've not
been particularly kind to those of us who choose to
exercise our Second Amendment rights over the years. But I
saw an article, and this was fascinating to me. They

(02:21):
were talking about a crime rate in the United States,
in particular, they were talking about the homicide rate in
the United States and they said, they said this quote,
They said, the United States remains a violent nation, more
so than many other high income countries. But the rate

(02:43):
of homicides has fallen dramatically for nearly four straight years.
There were five nine hundred and sixty five fewer killings
in twenty twenty four than in twenty twenty one. Figures
from the FBI show, which is absolutely true. By the way,
you want to look this up, go to the Uniform
Crime Report, it's called from the FBI, and they've got

(03:05):
great data tables in there. You can look at all
this up. But again, almost six thousand fewer killings in
twenty twenty four than twenty twenty one. And going back quote,
the drop off spans both red and blue states and
has unfolded even as police departments have struggled to fill vacancies.

(03:25):
And this is the part that caught my attention. And
Americans have purchased guns at a staggering pace. So hold on,
So almost six thousand fewer killings in a four year span,
and this is during a time span this is according
to the Washington Post, when Americans have purchased guns at

(03:47):
a staggering pace. Is that true? By the way, last
week I talked about how there were one point three
million new gun purchases just last month and how that was,
narratively speaking, a very high rate in a particular month,
But that's been a pattern that's been going on for
quite some time. But when you look at all of

(04:10):
this and you look at this data, it goes back
farther than that. I mean, what have you heard from
liberal politicians? What have you heard from whether it's Joe
Biden or Kamala Harris or any of the Democrats in
Congress for years and years and years? Is that you
What do you hear that we have an epidemic of

(04:33):
gun violence in this country? And we'll talk about gun violence,
we're talking about homicides, and a lot of times they
lump homicides and suicides together, which of course is misleading
because when you look at at fatalities from firearms in
a given year, they are typically two third suicides, well

(04:54):
over half every single year. But when you look at
total fatalities including homicide, you're typically talking about gun violence
to a very large degree, large percentage. And they talk
about an avalanche, a tsunami, a wave of gun violence.
It's overtaking this country and we need to pass dramatic

(05:14):
gun control measures to stem this tide of a dramatic
increase in homicides caused by quote unquote gun violence in
this country. Do the numbers really support that? I mean,
how many times you've heard that. We've heard it so
many times that a lot of people just take that
as true. You know, the highest homicide rate we've ever

(05:37):
had in this country going back forty years, highest ever
and here we're talking about homicides per one hundred thousand people.
You and the highest that ever was a lot of
people would say, oh, well, it had to have been
just recently last year or so. Now it is nineteen eighty.

(05:59):
Nineteen eighty, the homicide rate per one hundred thousand people
in the United States was ten point two, and then
it went down, it went up, It kind of wavered around,
and then all of a sudden, starting in about nineteen
ninety four, it declined every year and got very low

(06:22):
all the way down in nineteen ninety nine down to
five point five and almost fifty percent reduction from nineteen
eighty did. It remained fairly constant, wavered around a little
bit until COVID. And during COVID, you had the Summer
of Love, as we like to call it. You had
a lot of people running rampant in the streets, you

(06:43):
had riots, and all of a sudden it popped back up. Now,
nobody blamed that on COVID. Nobody blamed that about people
rioting or looting, or burglarizing or ambushing police officers or
any of the other things we actually saw during COVID.
Nobody blamed it on that. It's well, it's it's got

(07:03):
to be guns. We need to restrict guns. You know
what's happened then since twenty twenty, twenty twenty, again, after
a bit of a spike in homicides, homicide rate per
one hundred thousand people was six point eight. You know,
it's done since then, it's gone down every single year

(07:27):
six point five, five point seven. And you know what
it was in twenty twenty four, the last year, obviously
we have complete data for four point six four point six.
That's one of the lowest rates we've seen. This is
homicide rate per one hundred thousand, one of the lowest

(07:49):
rates we've seen since the FBI has been keeping the
statistics dramatically. The Washington Post had to acknowledge it and
had to acknowledge that that's happened as people have been
buying guns and record numbers. And oh, by the way,
you know what else happened between twenty twenty and now,

(08:11):
a whole bunch of additional states past constitutional carry where
people don't necessarily have to have a license or a
permit in their home state to be able to carry
a gun and protect themselves. And what do we hear
when we were fighting for constitutional carry over the ten
years that I fought for constitutional carry in the Indiana

(08:32):
General Assembly, what was the primary argument we heard against it? Oh, well,
if more people are carrying guns, we're going to see
more people shooting each other. We're going to see more homicides,
we see more people die. The crime rate's going to
go up. Police officers are going to be attacked more often,
the homicide rate's going to go through the roof. It's
gonna be blood in the street. It's gonna be the
Wild West. How many times do you hear that while

(08:53):
we were fighting for constitutional carry, including in twenty twenty
two when we got it passed. It's gonna be the
wild West, blood in the streets. What's a homicide rate done? Nationally?
And by the way, we were I believe the twenty
first state in twenty twenty two to pass constitutional care.
It's now up to thirty And during those years, when

(09:17):
those additional states we're passing constitutional care, what's a homicide
rate done. It's plummeted down to one of its lowest
rates ever. Certainly in the last forty years. You think,
perhaps perhaps just throw this out there, just spitball in here.

(09:38):
More law abiding citizens that have the capacity to defend themselves,
to resist violent crime, to prevent violent criminals from murdering
them because they have the capacity to defend themselves, their homes,
and their families. You think that's contributed to a dramatic

(09:59):
decline and homicide rates every year. I've got a theory.
What's your theory on that point? And listen, you can't
say there's causation in terms of passing constitutional carry or
people buying more and more guns, which they clearly have.
The numbers don't lie. It's just numbers. The FBI puts

(10:23):
out the numbers on homicides every year. The FBI puts
out the numbers on background checks that people go through
and they're buying a new gun. We know what the guns,
We know what the numbers are on people buying guns.
But we certainly know the numbers of more and more
states passing constitutional carry. But you can't say there's causation.
But you certainly can say there's correlation. And where there's
a correlation, you can perhaps into it, you can infer

(10:49):
that there's a direct cause as well. And I was
fascinated to see that even the Washington Post, the Washington
Post at your head around that for a minute, was
forced to acknowledge that this refrain, this chant that we
hear over and over and over again from people like

(11:11):
Mom's Demand Action and the Brady Campaign and the Gifford
Center and the Violence Policy Center and all the gun
control groups out there, what do we see when we
had the annual meeting, the NRA annual meeting here in Indianapolis.
I remember the protesters from Mom's Moms Demand Action. What
did they have? What are the signs that they all

(11:33):
passed out? These pre printed signs. They all walked around
downtown in Indianapolis. With more guns, more crime, more guns,
more crime. More Americans own guns today than at any
time in history, the largest percentage, the largest sheer number,
and the homicide rates are plummeting. So Mom's Demand Action

(12:00):
put that in your pipe and smoking. Get your head
around that for a minute, because those numbers don't lie.
Right now, we're taking a break. This is Guy Ralford
on The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WIBCUS. Guy
Ralford for the law offices of Guy Relford. You know,
if you've lost your Second Amendment rights due to a
conviction on your record or some other issue that's occurred

(12:20):
with you, you're interested in your options for perhaps restoring
your gun rights. That's something we do, we do often,
and we enjoy doing. You can contact us through the website.
Just go to Relfordlaw dot com. The phone numbers right there.
You can call us during the week or you can
send us an email right through the website as well.
We do restorations expungements, which can also seal a record

(12:40):
of a conviction off your record for a lot of convictions,
not all, but certainly a lot. You're interested in that
reach out in contact us through Ralford Law dot com.

Speaker 1 (12:53):
Second to nine on this Second Amendment. This is the
Gun Guy with Guy Ralford on ninety three.

Speaker 3 (13:02):
And welcome back. I'm Guy Ralford. I'm the Gun Guy
Show on ninety three WIBC. By the way, if you'd
like to join the discussion as always, you know, going
back ten plus years since we've had the Gun Guy Show,
we started as a call in show. I was a
kind of a fill in host on someone else's show,

(13:23):
and we decided to have a full hour of Ask
the Gun Guy or Ask the Gun Lawyer, I think
we called it then. And a bunch of people called,
and a bunch of people had interesting questions, and I
gave him answers, and that's what led to Wibc asking
me if I went to have my own show. And
I always want to kind of be true to my roots,

(13:43):
true to the origins of the Gun Guy Show here,
and so I always want to take your calls, I think,
And maybe The Home and Garden Show is the only
other show like this, but otherwise I think I'm the
only show that takes calls throughout the entire duration of
the show. Show. And so you got a question, you
got a comment, you want to weigh in on a

(14:03):
Second Amendment issue, give us a call. Three one seven
two three nine ninety three ninety three three one seven
ninety three ninety three. Producer Kevin is here through his
own good graces and kindness. He's helping us out on
the weekend after dealing with Rob Kemball all week I mean,
that's that's that's above and beyond the call of duty,
no question and uh. And but you can call in,

(14:26):
you can say it thanks to producer Kevin for helping
us out here on the weekend, and we'll get you
right on the air with whatever your question or comment
might be. But I've posted this on both Facebook and Twitter,
and by the way, on Twitter or x whatever we're
calling it these days, you can go on there, give
me a follow while you're there. I'm just at Guy Ralford.

(14:49):
But if you want to see the background on this
and some of the paperwork, I reposted a post from
the Gun Owners of America And one question I get
all the time is, h is guy, what what gun
rights groups should I support? Who is out there doing

(15:11):
doing the work that we ought to as gun owners
and as Second Amendment proponents? Who should we be supporting
out there? And listen, you know, I'm a benefactor life
member of NRA. Now, I became that level of member
of NRA quite some time ago, and NRA obviously went

(15:34):
through a rough patch and h and the leadership or
lack thereof by Wayne Lapierre was very suspect. Wayne Lapierre,
to my understanding, is still involved in litigation over his
misuse of NRA funds, and NRA cost itself a lot
of credibility with a lot of people. NRA is on

(15:55):
the way back, There's no question about that. We have
now three I believe it is three who's your that
are on the board of directors from NRA. We have
new leadership. Wayne Lapierre is gone, and listen, I fully
believe we need a strong, well funded, fully functional NRA
out there as we've had for generations, in order to

(16:16):
help fight, especially on the national level, for our gun
rights here in the United States. But there are a
lot of other groups that are really doing solid work.
One of those is Gun Owners of America and I'll
come back to that here in just a minute. But
Firearms Policy Coalition FPC, Firearms Policy Coalition, they are doing

(16:37):
great work, especially in the courtroom. They are out there,
they are winning cases and they are promoting our rights.
And I've talked about many of those cases here on
the show. And the Second Amendment Foundation, Alan Gottlieb's group
solid excellent. I'm a member of all these and will
continue to be in addition to my lifetime members in NRA.

(17:01):
Here locally, obviously, you've got the Two Way Project, that
group that I founded in twenty twenty, and we were
right out front and getting a lot done here in Indiana,
whether it's a constitutional carry or any number of other
pro two way bills we've gotten done since then. Of course,
you got the Indiana State Rifle and Pistol Association, who

(17:21):
are a great resource, and we're right there shoulder to
shoulder with us in the State House as well. But
on the national level, I got to tell you, I
am a big fan of gun owners of America. They
are not shy about going to the courtroom and winning
in the courtroom. They will take on hard issues and
they've had a lot of success, as Firearms Policy Coalition has,

(17:45):
as Second Amendment Foundation has, and obviously NRA, I mean,
the most important two way case we've ever had in
the United States that by a one vote margin, a
five to four margin in the US Supreme Court, the

(18:06):
US Supreme Court decided that the air is in fact
an individual right to bear arms protected by the Second Amendment,
unrelated to service in the military, and a lot of
people argued and in fact four justices of the US
Supreme Court agreed. Happily they were in the minority by

(18:26):
one vote. But in Heller versus DC in two thousand
and eight that was absolutely pioneered, funded, advanced, championed by NRA,
the Supreme Court decided for the first time that there is,
in fact an individual a right protected by the Second Amendment.
If Hellard gone the other way, if one vote had

(18:48):
gone the other way, in the United States today, if
you're not in the National Guard, the Second Amendment would
protect nothing for you. Zero. Think about that for a second.
How important was that? That was an ORA So we
got to give them credit where credit is due, the
relative fiasco of Wayne Lapierre's years of leadership notwithstanding. But

(19:12):
anyway back to Gun Owners of America. One of the
lawsuits that they filed is to invalidate major portions of
the National Firearms Act of nineteen thirty four, the NFA.
What's the NFA regulate? Well, if you listen to the
Gun Guy Show, you know this already. But a brief
review in nineteen thirty four, Congress, I think, influenced as

(19:36):
much by gangster movies and headlines, decided that certain classifications
of firearms needed to be more highly regulated than your
typical rifle, pistol, or shotgun. And they looked at specifically
machine guns. Right, you had lost of gangsters running around

(19:59):
with the Thompson sub machine guns, and Hollywood loved to
to glamorize that. And then short barreled shotguns, short barreled
rifles suppressors, which then they called silencers. And this another thing,
you know, if you listen to the Gun Guy show.

(20:19):
Silencer was actually the brand name for the guy who
invented the firearm suppressor, Hiram Percy Maxim, who he called
his product a firearm muffler, and his brand name was
a silencer. And Congress got the idea that there were
going to be all these ninja assassins running around silently

(20:40):
executing people, and said, oh my god, we need to
regulate these things. So short bailed shotguns. And the idea
is that you know, a gangster, a criminal, a bad
guy could hide a short brailed rifle, short bailed shotgun
under his overcoat and stink that wherever he wanted to
and then inflict mayhem on society. And then a couple

(21:01):
of other classifications destructive devices and any other weapons. And
I won't take the time right now to go into
the description of those other areas, but those other definitions,
but those mainly machine gun suppresors, short brailed rifle, short
bailed pistols, short barreled shotguns, machine gun suppressors. He said,

(21:21):
you know, we're not going to ban them because in
nineteen thirty four Congress still feared the Second Amendment. They
still fear the Supreme Court. So what we can't ban
these things. So what we'll do is we'll just tax them,
but will require registration of them as part of the tax.

(21:43):
That way, if we catch someone who hasn't registered and
paid the tax on that item, we can put them
in prison. And if gangsters are buying them, AHA will
know that we can prohibit that we can go arrest them,
particularly when they haven't paid the tax. And it was
a way of regulating these items, these NFA items, these

(22:07):
NFA firearms, under the guise of taxation. What they really
wanted was the registration component. And so what happened, well,
you had a lawsuit filed. It wasn't a lawsuit so
much as it was a criminal prosecution of a guy

(22:28):
named Sonzinski. And this ended up going all the way
up to the US Supreme Court. And by the way,
this is an originated right next door in Illinois, went
to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which Indiana's in
that same seven circuit. But he was a guy who
was a gun dealer who didn't pay his extra tax because,

(22:48):
by the way, you have to pay also what's called
a special occupational tax in order to deal in NFA items.
That's part of the NFA, and you can't possess an
NFA item without having paid the tax. And reach well
Sonzinski was a gun dealer and he hadn't paid his
special occupational tax to be an NFA dealer. He also
possessed at least one short barreled shock done without having

(23:10):
paid the tax himself. So he got it prosecuted, and
you're looking at ten years in federal prison. And Sanzinsky said,
back in the thirties, not long after the NFA was passed,
let's whole thing's unconstitutional. It is disguised as a tax,
but it is really gun control registration and regulation, which

(23:30):
the federal government has no constitutional authority to do. It's
a police power which is reserved to the state and
the federal government has no constitutional authority to even pass
the NFA, much less enforce it and put me in prison.

(23:50):
And this goes up to the United States Supreme Court,
and they issued their decision in nineteen thirty seven. Now,
why are we talking about a nineteen thirty seven decision.
We're gonna take a break here right now. But the
reason we're talking about it is because that decision forms
the basis for litigation going on right now that may

(24:11):
ultimately go to the Supreme Court as well on whether
recent changes to the NFA and the taxation required as
part of NFA actually render it completely unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable.
I went a little quickly through that. If that didn't
make sense to you, if that's confusing to you, I
will parse that out and make it much more clear
when we come back. Right now, we're past the bottom

(24:33):
of the hour. It's time to take a break, it
says Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy Show on ninety
three WIBC.

Speaker 1 (24:42):
The show about gun rights, gun safety, and responsible gun ownership.
This is the Gun Guy with Guy Ralford on three WYPC.

Speaker 3 (24:53):
And welcome back. I'm Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy
Show on ninety three WIBC here with producer Kevin, who's
been kind enough to help us out here on the weekend.
Stepped into the breach as we're sort of between producers
and so he's doing heroic work, which we greatly appreciate
him giving up his Saturday evening to help us out here,
not only on the Gun Guy Show, but on Saturday

(25:16):
night on The Circle coming up right here at seven o'clock.
But I was talking about this son Zensky case. Son
Zensky's a guy who's a dealer, but he didn't register,
didn't pay his sot as special occupational tax, which you
have to do in order to deal in NFA items,
and he himself possessed a short brailed shotgun that's required

(25:38):
to be registered and also requires a two hundred dollars
tax for you upon registration to be able to possess that.
And by the way, whenever I talk about NFA and
I talk about the two hundred dollar tax, I always
repeat this story. So if you're rolling your eyes at
me and you're saying to yourself you've heard this before,

(26:00):
I forgive me, But to me, it's so interesting. I
always want to repeat it for anybody who hasn't heard it,
the original two hundred dollars tax, which has never gone
up since nineteen thirty four. What I mean not that
I'm happy about paying two hundred dollars. And listen, I
have a lot of suppressors. I'm somewhat addicted to suppressors.
You start shooting suppressed, you want more suppressors. That's just

(26:21):
the way it works. I've got several SBRs and an SBS.
In fact, it was what twenty thirteen, I think, when
Indiana decriminalized so called sawed off shotguns, and July first,
when the Indiana law was going into effect, like at
midnight twelve oh one, I filed my electronic Form one

(26:43):
to make a short barreled shotgun because I wanted to
be the first kid on my block in Indiana to
have a short bailed shotgun. But the tax is two
hundred dollars, and I'm not that crazy about paying two
hundred dollars for every suppresser I want to buy. You're
buying an eight hundred dollars, one thousand dollars presser. Well,
how they got pay an out of twenty percent for
the damn tax. Not happy about it, but it's an

(27:05):
interesting question or an interesting point to say, what what else,
whether it's taxes or retail costs or anything else, what
else hasn't gone up since nineteen thirty four. I mean, seriously,
ninety years plus. That's pretty impressive. The two dollars tax

(27:25):
has always been the two hundred dollars tax. And you
know where that came from. The retail cost in nineteen
thirty four of a Thompson submachine gun was two hundred dollars,
and so Congress thought it would be really slick to
impose a one hundred percent tax on a Thompson submachine
gun in order for anybody to own one. And they

(27:49):
thought that would greatly discourage anybody from buying one, because
you just doubled the cost. And secondly, they could collect
that revenue. So at any rate, mister Sonzisky's being press
secuted right over in Illinois because he didn't pay his
tax and he possessed an unregistered Trump real Chuck, And
he says the NFA is unconstitutional because Congress didn't have

(28:12):
the constitutional authority to regulate guns. There's nothing within the
Constitution that gives Congress that power. They're essentially trying to
keep people safe quote unquote at least that's the ostensible
reason for passing the law, and that's a police power
which is not granted to the federal government in the Constitution.

(28:36):
And that old pesky tenth Amendment says that if any
power is not expressly granted to the federal government in
the Constitution, it's reserved for the states and the people.
So boom, no constitutional authority. And the argument against that
that came back from the government was, oh, no, this

(28:58):
is simply a tax statute. It's primarily revenue generating. It's
not exercising a true police power. Wink wink, It's just
requiring taxation. And the whole registration thing is just sort
of a way of keeping track of who's paid the
tax and who has it. So while there may be

(29:21):
some incidental benefit of the statute in terms of keeping
people safer and regulating firearms in the process, that's not
really what it's about. It's about generating revenue. And the
federal government is granted a taxing power by the Constitution
so exclusively because it was a taxing statute. The Supreme

(29:43):
Court in nineteen thirty seven, in the Suzinski case, rules
that on that basis and on that basis alone, the
NFA is constitutional. All right. Flash forward in twenty five,

(30:04):
we're fighting in Congress to try to deregulate under the
NFA short brailed shotguns, short brailed rifles, and suppressors take
them out of the NFA altogether, and different iterations of
the so called great, big, beautiful bill. Certainly big, there

(30:25):
are a lot of people who will debate how beautiful,
but different iterations of that, different drafts of that, especially
going back and forth between the House and the Senate,
either completely took suppressors, short brailed rifles, and short brail
shotguns out of the NFA, or simply eliminated the tax

(30:45):
on those items, but left the NFA requirement of registration. Ultimately,
the way it's passed, and this goes into effect January first,
twenty twenty six, which is coming right up, they simply
remove the tax. They still require the registration on those
three items, but they remove the tax. And this was

(31:09):
a big concession that a lot of people weren't all
that happy about that. The pro two way people in
Congress were willing to give up. But what does that
do eliminating the tax on those three items? What does
that do to the constitutionality of the NFA given the

(31:30):
Sonzinsky decision, which is the Supreme Court case. It says
it's only constitution it's only constitutional because it collects a tax. Well,
that's where we are, and that led to a Gun
Owners of America lawsuit to say that the NFA is
unconstitutional at a minimum as to those three items SBRs,

(31:53):
SBSS and suppressors because they did away with the tax.
And the only ostensible reason that she's constitutional to begin
with is because it collects attacks. Well, that sounds pretty
solid to me, and a lot of us expected the
federal government, through Pam Bondi's Department of Justice, to simply

(32:16):
fold their tent and go home and say, yep, got
us there. You must be right, the NFA is unconstitutional
at least as to those items. Is that what's happened? Ah,
therein lies the rub. That's what we'll go into when
we come back. Right now, we're taking a break. This
is Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy Show on ninety
three WYBC. Guy Relford for the law office of Guy Ralford.

(32:40):
If you've lost your gun rights through a criminal conviction
or other issue that's happened with you legally be interested
in restoring your gun rights, contact us through the website.
It's Ralfordlaw dot com. For a lot of folks, not
necessarily everyone, for a lot of folks. We can do
a lot of good in terms of restoring rights. We're
happy to talk to you about that. Go to the website,

(33:00):
either send us an email through the website or the
phone numbers right there. You can call us during the
Week'd be glad to talk to you about restoring Second
Amendment rights. If that's something that you're interested in pursuing.
It's Ralford Law dot com.

Speaker 1 (33:16):
Your Rights, your responsibilities, your guns. This is the Gun
Guy with Guy Ralford on ninety three wy VC.

Speaker 3 (33:28):
And welcome back. We've got kind of a short segment here,
so we're not going to be here real long. Although
I got I got to mention some idiot on the
YouTube feed, see who is this jen something just made
the points. So I hate it when when people like

(33:48):
Guy ignore shall not be infringed and and and give
a pass to blatant infringement of the Second Amendment by
simply saying that the tax hasn't gone up or some
crap like that. You know, usually listeners of the Gun

(34:09):
Guy Show have much better listening comprehension than this idiot.
I'm not forgiving any infringement of the Second Amendment. I'm
not minimizing the fact the federal government continues to infringe
our Second Amendment rights. In fact, my whole point in
this segment, which I will continue in a moment, is

(34:29):
the NFA is and should be found to be constant
unconstitutional and go away in its entirety. And I'm making
some interesting, in my mind, anyway, interesting historical note about
how the tax hasn't gone up. It's just interesting to
me that was two hundred dollars in nineteen thirty four
and it's two hundred dollars in twenty twenty five. That

(34:50):
doesn't forgive any infringement upon our rights. There, Einstein, and
simply noting it's interesting that Congress has never raised it.
In the meantime, what the lawsuit that was filed by
the Gun Owners of America says is that because the
tax has gone away, and the Sunzinski Supreme Court decision

(35:14):
said the NFA is only constitutional because of the tax,
it should now be found to be unconstitutional. And as
I mentioned, there was some hope now it turns out
to be naive that the Pam Bondi Department of Justice,
that under her leadership as Attorney General would turn around

(35:35):
and say, you know, what you're right is unconstitutional, and
the whole thing would fold. Is that. What's happened. No,
what's happened is they just, I believe yesterday the day before,
filed their brief in response to this lawsuit, and they
not only continue to make the argument that the NFA
is constitutional, they go way beyond the basis of the

(35:58):
Sunzinski decision and making a lot of arguments that the
gun control proponents in this country have been making for years.
How offensive is that. That's all We'll go into in
a lot more detail when we come back in our
number two. Right now, we're taking a break. Guy Ralford
on The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WYBC.

Speaker 1 (36:16):
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of
a free state, the right of the people to keep
in bear arms shall not be infringed. This is the
Second Amendment, and this is the gun Guy.

Speaker 2 (36:32):
Boom boom boom boom bang bang bang bang boom boom boom,
boom bang bang.

Speaker 1 (36:41):
Guy Ralford on ninety three WYBC.

Speaker 3 (36:46):
Yah welcome back for our number two the Gun Guy
Show here on ninety three WIBC. So we were talking
about the lawsuit that Gun Owners of America brought to
set aside major components of National Firearms Act. And this
thing looks to have an incredibly solid argument behind it,

(37:10):
which is, hey, the NFA is only constitution will begin with,
at least according to the Sonzinsky case from nineteen thirty seven,
because it's not really gun control, it's not really exercising
the police power. It's just the federal government doing what
it's authorized to do, which is Levy attacks. Well, the

(37:30):
tax just went away on sbr's, sbs is and suppressors.
So doesn't that do away with the constitutionality of the
statute at least as to those items. That seems to
me to be a pretty simple yes, but in a
move that is greatly disappointing to a lot of us,

(37:51):
and disappointing is different than surprising, And let's talk about
that for a minute. You know, Pam Bondy as Attorney General,
there was a significant portion of gun rights organizations and

(38:14):
those of us who value the Second Amendment and in
fact been engaged in the fight for Second Amendment rights
for a long time that had very legitimate concerns about
Pam Bondi becoming Attorney General and why is that. Pam
Bondy was Attorney General of Florida before Trump nominated her

(38:35):
to be US Attorney General. While Attorney General of Florida,
she litigated litigation on behalf of the state of Florida
to protect, to preserve, to defend the constitutionality of Florida's

(38:56):
red flag laws allowing gun seizure from people who haven't
been convicted of any crime, and one that got a
lot of people somewhat by surprise in terms of the
federal or excuse me, in terms of the State of
Florida being willing to aid pass this and then the

(39:18):
Attorney general there being willing to defend it in court,
which was Florida passed a prohibition on the purchase of
any long gun by people under twenty one. Federal law
says you have to be twenty one to buy a handgun,
but federal law says you can buy a long gun,
a rifle, or a shotgun when you're eighteen. After the

(39:39):
Parkland school shooting at the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School,
in Florida, the state of Florida, the legislature passed a
law there that says you have to be twenty one
to buy a rifle or a shotgun, saying that essentially,
if you're in the ray age range from eighteen to
twenty one, you have no Second Amendment rights because you

(40:01):
can't buy a handgun already under federal law, and now
you can't buy a rifle or a shotgun under Florida law.
And a lot of people rightfully so. And in fact,
this is another issue that's going to be litigated at
the federal level in terms of even the federal prohibition
on handguns, and I fully expect that to be turned around.

(40:21):
But Pam Bondi defended that litigation as well for Florida,
so she's out there on record, and again part of
her job, and the reason I was willing to at
least reserve judgment. Had a lot of trepidation, had a
lot of concern, But I was willing to reserve judgment
as US Attorney General because her job as Florida Attorney

(40:43):
General is to defend the statutes on the books, and
it doesn't necessarily denote what her personal views are. Her
personal legal analysis necessarily if her job the job described
is to defend the statute, because there it's an up

(41:06):
or down decision. It's legal. It's either constitutional or it's not.
And I wasn't pleased with the position she took in
those cases, but I thought, well, let's wait and see.
So then we started off pretty well with the US
Attorney General and the Trump administration because one of the
first things she did, she came out and announced that
the US Department of Justice would review the federal government's

(41:29):
position in any pending case involving Second Amendment rights, and
in those cases where they felt that a federal statute
was unconstitutional, they would fold their tent and concede. And
in those cases where they felt the argument against the
federal government promoting Second Amendment rights was the better part
of the argument, they would concede and they would resolve

(41:51):
those cases and promote Second Amendment rights. And we have
some solid examples of that. Pretty much gave up in
the bumpstock no excuse me, bumpstock litigation went at the
Supreme Court. I didn't mean to say bump stock, I
meant pistol brace litigation. They pretty much gave up in
the pistol brace litigation, and that issue went away. Forced

(42:15):
reset triggers. They pretty much gave up on forced reset triggers.
They settled that case to say that essentially now forced
reset triggers, no, do not convert a gun into a
machine gun and are totally legal. You can put a
forced reset trigger into your rifle, your handgun for that matter,
doesn't convert it to a machine gun. Good thing. I

(42:37):
have a forced reset trigger and an SBR that I
have and that's because the federal government resolved that litigation
with rare Breed if you want to look that up
US versus rare Breed and said, nope, you're what. You
guys made that force reset trigger. They're good to go
and and not illegal. And so we had some reason

(42:58):
to be optimistic. But then we get to this litigation
involving the NFA and they didn't just come back and
file a brief. And this is this is where the
Gun Owners of America is trying to win on summary judgment,
a purely legal argument, file a motion, file a brief

(43:19):
court rules on that. The federal government, in the form
of the Pam Bondi Department of Justice, filed a response.
It doesn't just say, well, for certainly, it doesn't concede
that doing away with a tax on those NFA items
at issue makes an extatute unconstitutional. They didn't concede it.

(43:41):
They argue, no, no, it's still constitutional. They went way, way,
way beyond that. And this is where it's disappointing. They
came out and they said, well, Congress can regulate anything
at once to regarding firearms under the Commerce Clause. And listen,
if you want to get me going, I'll tell you

(44:02):
that the biggest, the biggest attack on freedom in this country,
and the biggest over extension of federal power and over
extension of Congress's power ever in this country has been
the Supreme Court allowing Congress to use the Commerce Clause
to regulate almost any damn thing they want to. Well,

(44:26):
if something affects interstate commerce in some way, then the
constitutional delegation of power to the federal government to regulate
interstate commerce is implicated, and then therefore it's constitutional. That's
not what the founders intended with the Commerce Clause. And

(44:50):
that's been that's been the subject of or that's been
the rationale behind the passing of every federal gun control
law since then, if you notice in things like the
Brady Bill or whatnot, they'll say as to firearms that
have moved in interstate commerce, and then they go on
and regulate whatever they want to. They weren't beyond that,

(45:13):
and they said, well, the necessary and proper clause, right,
because if the federal government has been specifically delegated a
particular power, necessary and proper clause of the Constitution says, well,
they also have the power those additional powers that are
necessary and proper in order to enforce the power given

(45:33):
to them by the Constitution. Well, that's not a grant
of all new powers. It doesn't give them powers not
relegated to them. It just allows them to take the
steps necessary to do the job the Constitution assigns to them.
But then they went beyond that, and they even in

(45:56):
this brief went on to say that these particular NFA
items sharp brail rifle, short brail shotguns, and suppressors. Guess
what term they used weapons of war? Weapons of war
that need to be specifically regulated by the NFA to
keep American safe. I'm going to leave it there while

(46:21):
we go into this break, but let's talk a little
bit about how completely inconsistent. That is with the Sunzinski decision,
which is the one that established for the first time
that NFA was constitutional to begin with. It's completely inconsistent.
It's maddening. And the fact that this came out of

(46:41):
Trump's Department of Justice and the Department of Justice run
now by Attorney General Pam Bondi is not just disappointing
to me, it's disgusting. It's making every liberal gun control advocate,
every gun graber. I don't even use that term a lot.
It's overused. What did they love to say? They love

(47:06):
to talk about keeping people safe, and they love to
talk about guns of war, weapons of war that need
to be taken out of the hands of the common citizen.
Guns of war, weapons of war. Let's talk about that
and what our founders absolutely believe about that issue. When

(47:30):
we come back. Right now, we're taking a break. This
is Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy Show on ninety
three WWC Guy Ralford for the Law Officers of Guy Relford.
If you're interested in having your gun rights restored after
a conviction, including a conviction for a crime of domestic violence,
there's a process to restore your rights. It's available to
a lot of people, not necessarily everyone, But if you're
interested in knowing whether there's a relief available to you,

(47:54):
contact us through the website. Just go to Ralford Law
dot com. That's Welford Law dot com.

Speaker 1 (48:03):
Now you've got a gun guy, Guy Ralford on ninety
three WYPC.

Speaker 3 (48:11):
Man, welcome back. I'm Guy Ralford on the Gun Guy
Show on ninety three WYBC. And I got to tell
you this argument from the BONDI d OJ, you know,
and for Trump's DOJ to do this again disappointing and
surprising her two different things. And we knew back in

(48:33):
twenty sixteen President Trump was going to be a mixed
bag on two way. He said all the right things
showed up to the in our annual meeting, but he
also said some very troubling things. He's the guy who
on live TV I was watching at the time, talking
about red flag laws, he said, take the gun's first
due process. Later. That's from President Trump, and again he

(48:59):
says a lot of the right things, but on his watch,
the BONDI DOJ is taking positions here that I found
not just inconsistent with Second Amendment rights, I find completely
repugnant and talking about these particular NFA regulated items SBRs,
sbs is insprise weapons of war as a justification for

(49:23):
continuing this regulation on them. I mean, I got two
I have two problems with that. First problem is you're
just appealing to this emotional reaction that oh, my gosh,
private citizens shouldn't have these ultra hazard it's ultra dangerous
weapons of war that could only should only be in

(49:43):
the hands of law enforcement and the military, and and
and trying to demonize firearms that a lot of us own.
And by the way, the NFA doesn't say we can't
own them, just as just says we have to pay
this ridiculous tax and register them. So I mean, exactly

(50:07):
what is the priority and keeping them out of the
hands of ordinary citizens is all we got to do
is bribe the government to let us own them. Logically,
that doesn't stand up. But secondly, I'm completely disgusted by
the use of that term as an argument for why
guns ought to be taken out of the hands of
private citizens or regulated in this case, when I have

(50:32):
no doubt whatsoever that our founders absolutely intended for actual
weapons of war to be in the hands of private citizens.
I mean, look, at the wording of the Second Amendment itself.
You know what the anti TWOA people tried to use
as a rationale, And again, what for justices of the U. S.
Supreme Court agreed with was the preamble, the opening clause

(50:57):
of the Second Amendment talking about a well regulated militia,
well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a
free state. The right of the people to keep in
bare arms shall not be infrenhed. We so, well, there
you go talking about well regulated militia. That means you
need to be in a militia for the Second Amendment

(51:18):
to protect any rights that you have. Supreme Court rejected
that and said, no, they were simply they were simply
elucidating a motivation to preserve rights of individual citizens to
bear arms, to keep and bear arms. But when you
look at that motivation, a well regulated militia, which is

(51:40):
the Supreme Court held in the hell Or decision, is you,
it's me. It's the common citizen being necessary for the
security of a free state. If you and I, as
private citizens, as the militia in the eyes of the founders,
if we're necessary and our right to bear arms is

(52:04):
necessary for the security of a free state. There's two
key words there. Security. Yeah, because we want the militia,
I want the common man to stand right next to
the standing army to repel foreign invaders, to fight wars.
That security. But then what the word free in there?

(52:27):
What's the word free and there for? And listen, don't
take my word for it. Look at the Heller decision.
The Supreme Court held this and they have reiterated it
since then. It's one of the primary motivations to pass
the Second Amendment and preserve and protect the right to
bear arms of the common citizen is to protect against
the tyrannical government. Why on earth would we want the

(52:48):
citizens to be as well armed as the government in
order to protect the security of a free state. And
in the same brown us say that citizens shouldn't be
as well armed when it comes to so called weapons
of war. Does that make any damn sense to you?

(53:09):
Of course not. Does it make any sense in the
context of necessary to the security of a free state.
If we're necessary to the security of a free state,
just as the standing army is, then we ought to
be just as well armed as a standing army. That
just makes sense. And it is a literal easy logical

(53:30):
interpretation of the Second Amendment. And then you have the
Miller case from nineteen thirty nine, again talking about sought
off shotguns, another NFA case, and the Supreme Court said
that short barreled shotguns, sought off shotguns, quote unquote, are

(53:51):
not protected by the Second Amendment. Therefore, it can be
regulated under the NFA because they're not particularly useful for
military service. Hold on, and they went through the exact
same analysis I just did. Under the Second Amendment, it
said necessary for the security of a free state, necessary
for service and a militia. So only those firearms particularly

(54:14):
useful for military service are protected by the Second Amendment.
And how the hell since nineteen thirty nine have we
completely turned that on its head and said, wait a minute,
if a firearm is only useful for military service, it's
not protected by the Second Amendment. That's exactly the opposite
of A what the Second Amendment says, and b what
the Miller decision from nineteen thirty nine says, and all.

(54:38):
That's pretty damn obvious to me, But it's obviously not
obvious to the Pam Bondi Justice Department, who wants to
use this emotional argument of weapons of war to argue
for regulation and argue for the constitutionality of the NFA.
It's completely turning logic, law, and precedent on their heads,

(55:00):
all of which is repugnant to me. So is there
anything we can do about it? Well, listen, I don't know,
don't I don't know that the Trump administration or the
Pam BONDI DOJ will listen to us. But in the
in the social media post that I reposted, both on

(55:20):
Twitter or x and Facebook, the Gun Runs of America
they have a phone number to call. They say, call
and urge the Trump DOJ to stop defending gun registration,
stop attacking the Second Amendment and in the unconstitutional NFA.
And they give a phone number. And this is on
my social media It's at Guy Relford on Twitter. I'm

(55:42):
also just Guy Relford on Facebook. But the phone number,
if you're taking this down, hey, it's worth a phone call.
Two O two four five six one one one one.
Pretty easy to remember. Two O two four five six
one one one Gun Runs of America owner of Gun
Owners of America. The organization is urging us to call

(56:04):
that number. Ay, I say, let's do it. Let's all
do it. You listen to this show, give it a
call two two four five six and say, what the
hell is Pam BONDI doing. You're supposed to be supporting
and defending our Second Amendment rights. You're making arguments that
the gun grabbers use against us. This is not what
we expected, this is not what we want, and it's

(56:27):
something we actually demand of the Trump administration to be
turned around. One hundred and eighty degrees. That's worth a call.
I've made the call. I'm going to call back, and
I urge everyone who's listening to the show tonight to
do exactly the same thing. Is at the bottom of
the arrow is take a break. We'll we'll change subjects
here a little bit, and I'll tell you what I've
been ignoring the phone lines. Apologies to anyone who has called.

(56:50):
We have one brave soul who's stuck around. We'll go
to the phone lines. If you want to join the
discussion about anything too Ray related, just give us a call.
Join the discussion. Three one seven ninety three. This is
Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WYBC.

Speaker 1 (57:09):
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 (57:21):
And welcome back on Guy Rulford on The Gun Guy
Show on ninety three WIBC. I'll tell you what Howard
has been on hold for man right at an hour. Howard,
you are a rock star. I'm so sorry it took
me so long to get to you, buddy. I was
on a little bit of a rant, and forgive me
for that, but thanks so much for your patience.

Speaker 4 (57:40):
Yeah, there's been a bunch of internet blogs and stuff
about the VA issuing carry permits for veterans. What do
you know about that? The vah Vedoran administration comes on, man,
don't make a little online quiz.

Speaker 3 (58:01):
No, man, I think that's a scam, Howard.

Speaker 4 (58:04):
You know what I thought so too. That's why I'm
asking I will.

Speaker 3 (58:08):
I will look into that. But I've not seen any
such thing. And there is no There is no federal
gun permit, you know that. I'm aware of, period, and
and and what we're looking at with national reciprocity is
requiring each state to recognize the license of every other state. Now,

(58:32):
there is a little bit of precedent, and this is
why this bears some investigation, Howard, and I'm glad you
called because I will look into this, uh hopefully here
this week. But the there is a little bit of
precedent in that Congress past, the Law Enforcement Officer Safety
Act LIOSA that allows law enforcement officers and some retired

(58:55):
qualified retired law enforcement officers to be able to carry
their guns state to state, irrespective of the laws of
individual states. To the contrary. Now, there have been officers
who had a hard time with that, and there was
a famous case in Illinois where Illinois basically said, we
don't care what LEOSA says. We're going to prosecute officers
for carrying guns into Illinois who aren't on duty in Illinois.

(59:22):
But the LEOS is out there. But that was that
was a federal statute. Is a federal statute passed by Congress.
And I don't know any authority for the Veterans Administration
to pair just to have some regulation that allows veterans
to carry state to state. I could be completely wrong
if anybody knows more about this than I do, because

(59:44):
this may be news to me, and I'm always willing
to be educated. Give me a call. Join the discussion.
Three one seven two three nine ninety three ninety three,
or contact me again through the website ralfridlaw dot com
if I'm wrong on this and I need to be educated,
I'd love to to know more, but I think it's
a scamp. One thing I will tell you for sure

(01:00:05):
is there are these things. I see them all the time,
and I always comment, and I'm sure my comments get
deleted more often than not, but I always come to
these things on social media says get a fifty state
licensed to carry, you know, just apply here, and then
they always imply there's some limited window, limited time only
you can still get a license, or even specific to Indiana,

(01:00:28):
get your Indiana license and you go there, you take
some quiz which basically is just the questions that are
on the Indiana State Police website for whether you're eligible
to get a license or not, and then they say, congratulations,
you know, just go here now and apply. Then they
charge you a fee. They make it look like if
you pay these fraudsters some money, that boom, they send

(01:00:55):
you a license. They can't send you an Indiana license
to carry hand and only the state police can do that,
and they only do that once you apply for a
license on the State Police website. And so the whole
idea that these these scam organizations are out there or
some of them, that they are offering classes come take

(01:01:16):
your your concealed carry license class and and and get
your Indiana license. Well, first of all, no class is
required for an Indiana licensed to carry handgun. They're charging
you a fee for this, and you still have to
go through the same licensing process that you had to
go through anyway to get your your your Indiana licensed

(01:01:36):
to carry handgun. So it's a complete out or scam.
I always comment on them, and and for that reason,
I'm glad Howard even raised this VA issue, which is
complete news to me if it exists, which I doubt,
but I don't know for certain. That's why I'm going
to look into it. But Howard, thanks for calling. Let's
go back to the phone lines here real quick, and

(01:01:58):
let's see Mike has called. Well, hold on, you want
to talk about atomic bombs and garages? Oh?

Speaker 4 (01:02:04):
Yeah, why can't I have a build an atomic bomb
in my garage?

Speaker 3 (01:02:07):
I mean Second Amendment says I can have anything, right, Yeah, Well,
the founders would probably say you could. If the government
has then you absolutely can. Should there be any exceptions
for that. We can talk about that. But in terms
of basic firearms, Mike, like the kind of rifle, pistol,
or shotgun I can own that should be somehow different
from the military. That's completely ludicrous. And you know that

(01:02:30):
you want to call me with an absurd example like
atomic bombs, Well, okay, you're not really making a point,
You're just making yourself look a little silly. The idea
that if it's a quote unquote weapons of war as
a as a portable gun, then then that should be
somehow be restricted from private ownership is completely ludicrous. And

(01:02:52):
by the way, the Supreme Court has already dealt with
your silly example of atomic bombs in garages, which is
that if it's commonly used for self defense in America,
it's covered by the Second Amendment. Now, the founders didn't
put any restriction like that in the Second Amendment, but
the Supreme Court has said commonly used for lawful purposes.

(01:03:16):
I don't think atomic bombs are commonly used for lawful purposes,
so the Supreme Court would say that's not covered. Or
short buriled shotgun, shop burrowed rifles and suppressors commonly used
for lawful purposes. Hell yeah, Hell I pretty much qualify
for that in and of myself. Look at my gun,
say for a number of sprs and suppressors commonly used

(01:03:36):
for lawful purposes one hundred percent. So silly example, and
that's a great, a great example of someone who's just
trying to make a silly point at the expense of logic.
I'll tell you what. Let's leave it there and take
a break. We'll come back. We'll go to my last topic,
which is a really interesting tragic because it ended up

(01:04:00):
with the death of a private citizen in Lafayette. I
want to talk a little bit about a police action
shooting that angela good note from Fox fifty nine. I'll
tell you what. If there's a local TV journalist that
I respect, it's angela good note from Fox fifty nine.
She just does a great job. She has all the
credibility in in the world. She works hard, and I

(01:04:23):
think does a really nice job, and I'm a big
fan of hers. But she posted about this police action
shooting and it just raised an interesting legal issue that
I wanted to address here briefly on the show. We'll
do that when we come back. This is guy Ralford
on The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WIBC.

Speaker 1 (01:04:42):
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 (01:04:55):
And welcome back for the last segment here this week's
The Gun Guys Show. Interesting, tragic, but legally interesting. A
police action shooting last night or I guess the night
before last in Lafayette and listen, all we have is

(01:05:15):
what's being reported by the Lafayette Police Department. But again,
this was posted by Angela Goode, who, as I mentioned,
I'm a big fan of But Lafayette Police Department officers
a little after midnight pulled over a vehicle on suspicion
of impaired driving, and after the driver was pulled over,

(01:05:42):
the mail driver apparently made statements indicating a risk of
harm to himself quote unquote, as reported by the officers,
and then fled the scene, and LPD policy apparently didn't
allow them to initiate a vehicle pursuit at that point.
They pretty much let him go without engaging in any
kind of a quote unquote high speed chase, but it

(01:06:04):
continued looking for him and Eventually they found him in
an apartment complex part They again approached the vehicle and
at this point he refused to get out of the
of the vehicle and made comments that he was armed
with a weapon. And at that point, upon saying that

(01:06:28):
he had a gun, quote, moved his hand to his
waistband behind his back as if he was preparing to
brandish a weapon. So he said, I have a gun
and then moved his hand to his waistband behind his
back while sitting in the vehicle. Now, this is all
according to police, and as my friend Kirk, who practices

(01:06:51):
law him off yet and has a lot of interactions
with LPD, has said that he really wants to see
the body worn camera coming out of this. Let's just
for the sake of discussion, say that's all true. So
he said he had a weapon, then reached behind his back,
at which point officers opened fire. In fact, I saw
a video that friend of mine sent to me that

(01:07:16):
didn't show much visually, but you could hear several gunshots.
I mean, they apparently shot this guy several times, which
is not unusual for police action shootings. Police are trained
to stop a threat and a discussion then on social media,
especially after I reposted this broke out on social media

(01:07:37):
where people were talking about, well, it'll be really interesting
to see whether he actually had a gun or not,
and people were saying, or at least suggesting that whether
he had a gun or not would determine whether or
not this was a justified use of force and self defense. Now, listen,
when it comes to police action shootings, there's a whole

(01:07:58):
added element that doesn't apply to us as civilians. There
are civil rights issues, in fact, civil rights criminal violations
that can apply to police officers, which is someone acting
under color of state law who deprived someone of their
constitutional rights. And you can deprive someone of their constitutional

(01:08:21):
rights by shooting them or otherwise using excessive force on them.
But secondly, they're simply prosecution under state law for killing someone,
which could be a murderer, could be a voluntary manslaughter,
could be any number of different charges unless it's justified.

(01:08:43):
So let's just stay with state law and justification based
on self defense. And a lot of people on my
social media post, I think this one was on x
we're discussing whether or not and it's actually may be
an Andrew Gannot's post. Now that I think about it.
We're discussing whether or not this was justified. It was

(01:09:04):
going to be determined to a significant degree by whether
the guy really had a gun or not. He said
he had a gun, and he reached to his waistband
behind his back, at which point the officer's open fire,
and I immediately made the point whether he actually had
a gun or not is not even relevant to the inquiry.

(01:09:27):
And people found that really surprising, and some people found
that repugnant. Well, what do you mean if he didn't
really have a gun, he was never a risk, he
was never a danger to the officer. If he was
never an actual danger to the officer, then the use
of force was not justified in self defense. And it
just made me realize that this is another example of

(01:09:50):
where people really don't understand the law of self defense
as it operates in Indiana, because, again, talking only about
self defense and legal justification of the law of self
defense in Indiana, whether you're talking about the general self
Defense Statute that applies to you no matter where you
might be, including out in public and would apply to

(01:10:13):
this officer being out in public, or whether you're talking
about the Castle doctrine that applies to you when you're
in your home you're dwelling, as well as your curtilage
or occupied motor vehicle, whichever scenario you're talking about, whether
you're justified or not depends on whether you had a
reasonable belief the deadly force was necessary under the circumstances

(01:10:38):
that are justified in each of those different scenarios out
in public. You have to reasonably believe the deadly force
is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to you or
a third person reasonably believed. You don't have to be right.
The statute doesn't put on anyone the obligation of being omniscient,

(01:11:04):
and the law and through case law and the boarding
of the statute itself specifically prohibits evaluating someone's reasonable belief
and the use of force based on that reasonable belief.
It particularly precludes the opportunity to use hindsight to attack

(01:11:26):
someone's decision. Well, hold on, he said he had a gun,
and he reached behind himself into his waistband to grab
a gun. You then defended yourself, but he didn't actually
have a gun. Based on hindsight, there was never a
risk to begin with. Therefore, you were not justified. No, No,
and No, the law says you simply have to have

(01:11:48):
a reasonable belief. There are cases that say, specifically, I
talk about this in my Essentials of Indiana Gunwall class.
You can be wrong. The person that's a who points
the airsoft gun at an officer doesn't have an orange tip,
it looks exactly like a real gun, turns out to

(01:12:08):
be an airsoft gun after the fact. Does that mean
the officer was not justified using force. No, It's based
on a reasonable belief. That's how the law works, That's
how it should work, and people need to understand that.
Tell you what We're coming up on the top of
the hour. That's it for this week's edition to The
Gun Guy Show. Hope you enjoyed it. Hope you come back.
Remember always be safe and always shoot straight. This is

(01:12:30):
Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WYBC.