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 boom boom boom boom bang bang bang bang boom boom boom boom bang bang.

Bo Guy Ralford on ninety three WYBC.

And good afternoon, and welcome to the Gunk Guys Show on ninety three WIBC thrilled agree with us, and hey, right off the bat, if you're looking for something to do to raise money for a political candidate that I'm excited about, and you'd like to go out maybe and bust some sporting plays in the process.

Michelle Davis, and you may know that name.

I've supported her a couple of other fundraisers.

Actually taught a whole bunch of people over three years now.

It taught some people some pistol lessons, and then this most recent time we had a rifle lesson.

This was all part of a fundraiser, so that was kind of cool, something completely Second Amendment related.

But she's now running for Senate and Senate District forty one.

And while I'll hate to lose her, in the House of Representatives where she is now.

I'm excited about her moving over to the Senate, and that's primarily because of who if she's elected, she'd be replacing.

Senator Greg Walker from Columbus is the incumbenty.

He's announced he's not seeking reelection.

But Greg Walker is a quote unquote Republican, but was one of a hand handful of Republicans who actually voted against us on constitutional care back in twenty twenty to excuse me, twenty twenty two, and he hasn't been in my favor certainly since then, and as several other Senate Republicans have not for exactly the same reason.

But to replace Greg Walker in that Senate seat.

Again, there's only fifty of these folks in the whole state, and they have a super majority obviously of Republicans.

But we need real Republicans, and in my view, given my political focus, we need real Republicans that will advocate for support our Second Amendment rights.

That was not Greg Walker.

It is Michelle Davis, and for that reason I've been supporting her.

I went to her announcement here a few weeks ago, which I think I talked about here on the show.

But if you're interested in shooting some sporting plays, you can sign up.

They can have a tournament out at Indiana Gun Club.

That's my home club.

It's where I like to shoot, and we just had a fundraiser out there for Salvation Army a couple of weeks ago, and I'm happy to report my team won that.

By the way, I was not the high scorer on my team, I have to admit, but we did.

We did win that by a somewhat substantial marching.

But Michelle has just a few teams and individual participant spots available.

And if you'd like to sign up for this, it's the sixteenth, which is a Thursday.

It's in the afternoon noon to three.

Primarily lunch is going to be included.

But I have posted the link on my Twitter just at Guy Relford Twitter x as we're now calling it.

I've posted the link.

I've also put on my Facebook at Guy Ralford as well.

If you want to go find it.

It's secured dot win read win read as in win Republican secure dot winread dot com and then friends of Michelle Davis slash clays and you've got to hyphen eate friends of Michelle Davis slash Clays, and that'll take care right to it.

If you want to go a little easier, I can just go to Twitter or x or Facebook.

Find me on there and I just posted those links.

You can click right on them and go from there.

It gives you an opportunity to sign up, whether for a team of four or as an individual.

You can do either.

If you sign up as an individual, they will get you on a team.

I'm going to be out there.

I'm trying to arrange my schedule.

I've got a trial coming up just a couple of days from then, so I'm not sure i could spend the whole time shooting, But if my case gets continued or I'm otherwise able to free up the time, then I'm going to absolutely shoot the tournament.

I'd be excited to do it, and it'd be fun to meet some of our listeners out there and shake some hands.

If you go to Twitter, by the way, give me a follow while you're on there.

I would appreciate that much.

So.

In the Second Amendment realm, the Supreme Court has just announced that it's taking a Second Amendment case, and they haven't taken one of these in a while, and they took Bruin back then, I think it was twenty twenty two.

Then they took Raheemi and those were important cases.

Bruin was huge, and I just talked about this last week.

I won't repeat that discussion, but it was huge in that they created the new test.

It defined the test for determining whether a law, whether it's a state law or federal law, is constitutional under the Second Amendment.

And throughout this ridiculous balancing test that we've been looking at for quite some time that talked about, well, a little bit of infringement is okay, we're going to balance that against whatever compelling state interest is being furthered by the statute in question.

And so it just it forgave infringement of a constitutional right based on some kind of bizarre balancing, and courts that were inclined to do so.

All they had to do was say, well, the compelling state interest is keeping people, and oh my gosh, how important is that, And so these gun control laws are just meant to save lives, and that there can't be a more compelling interest than that.

So we're going to forgive and find constitutional whatever level of infringements involved.

And that's how things like assault weapon bands and magazine capacity bans and any number of other gun control laws have been supported in the courts below the Supreme Court level.

Well, finally, the Supreme Court in Bruin took that case, and it was dealing with New York State's licensing statutes that required some bureaucrat to exercise discretion on whether U had a sufficient need to get a license.

And he said no, that discretionary system, or a may issue system as it's called, is unconstitutional, and states have been ordered to grant licenses to their people on a shell issue basis, as we have here in Indiana, meaning if you're eligible, you get a license, and there's no discretion involved.

Then he had Rahimi, which looked at these were bad facts.

And as a lawyer for a long long time, I've said for a long time that bad facts make for bad law, and Rahimi were terrible facts.

And Mahimi was a very, very bad guy, was a violent guy.

Had reportedly and based on court records, abused several different women, had fired shots or at least in the air after a bystander challenged him for, you know, forcefully shoving a woman into a car while abusing her, and he got a domestic violence order of protection issued against him, and the issue went up to the Supreme Court in the Rahemi case to say, well, the guy hasn't been convicted of a crime.

A domestic violence order of protection is issued after a civil process.

It's not criminal.

And is that constitutional when you haven't been convicted of any crime, You've just gone through a civil proceeding.

And by the way, I'm gonna talk about this issue in the text of red Flag laws here in just a bit here yet on the show.

But if you can lose a constitutional right, specifically your Second Amendment rights, by losing a court proceeding, doesn't that, by definition mean that you're entitled.

You're legally entitled under the Fifth and fourteenth Amendments to due process of law.

And if you're entitled to due process, doesn't that include the right to counsel?

And if you can't afford counsel, shouldn't the state have to appoint one for you?

Because if you're entitled to due process under the constitutional requirements of due process and a state court proceeding, that would be under the Fourteenth Amendment.

But if you can't afford a lawyer, you don't get a lawyer.

How is that consistent with due process?

And I thought that's what the Rahemi case should have focused on, is the due process issues.

Instead they just looked at, well, was there a judicial determination?

Did a judge determine that Rahimi was credible threat to another individual?

And if the answer to that is yes, and the answer was yes, then it is consistent with the Second Amendment and consistent with the text, history, and tradition of regulation under the Second Amendment, which is the test defined in the Bruin case.

Based on that judicial determination of a person being a credible threat to another person, yes, you can deprive that person of their Second Amendment rights.

And by the way, while that's in the context of a domestic violence order of protection, to the extent that a red Flag case does the same thing.

That is, is a judicial determination that a person is a danger to themselves or others, a credible threat to themselves or others.

The Supreme Court would say that's constitutional.

Does that mean you agree with that?

Does that mean I agree with that?

No, It's what the court ruled, and that's the law we have to live under.

You know, I see a lot of people on social media, people comment on when I put different judicial rulings.

I have people come on there and say all gun laws are unconstitutional and red flag laws are unconstitutional, and they start lecture man it.

Well, Hey, I'm the lawyer who argued before the Indiana Court of Appeals and tried to take it to the Supreme Court that our red flag law is unconstitutional.

Court of Appeals disagreed with me in a two to one decision.

Supreme Court didn't want to take it.

So nobody needs to lecture me.

But I can also tell you what the state of the law is, whether I agree with it and whether you agree with it, or whether we're happy about it, or separate issues.

But the state of the law is that of the I believe it's eighteen states now maybe nineteen that have red flag laws.

Not one of them has been found to be unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

Not one.

It hasn't been challenged.

Yes, and then have any petitioners won on that.

No, Again, I'm not arguing in favor of red flag laws.

I'm telling you what the state of the law is in the state of disterminations.

But so those were the two most recent Supreme court cases Bruin and Rahimi, and that that kind of defines the landscape for us a little bit.

What a lot of states did.

New York did it in direct response because the Bruin case was about New York's licensing laws.

So what New York did and also what Hawaii did, and what several other states did.

California has done a bunch of this is they took language out of the Bruin decision that said, yes, there is a constitutionally protected right to carry a handgun in public, and in the court added some language to that and they said, however, we're not saying that it is unconstitutional for states to limit the carrying of handguns into sensitive areas like schools, where there's an interest in keeping guns out of those places.

So, yeah, you have a general right to carry a handgun in public, but states can still keep guns out of quote unquote sensitive places.

They didn't really give us a good definition, a workable definition of sensitive places.

So what in New York do?

What did Hawaii do?

They basically defined every damn place as a sensitive area where you can't carry guns.

And Hawaii want to step further, and this is the law that now is going to be examined in a case called Wolford versus Lopez.

Is wol f Ord If I slur that just right, it kind of sounds like Ralford.

But Wolfford versus Lopez is going up to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court just accepted SCALERAI, meaning they're taking the case just Thursday of Friday, and what they're going to look at is Hawaii's law that takes this sensitive places business a step further and says that any kind of business a property owner, it's privately owned.

Unless the owner of the property has explicitly explicitly giving you permission to carry a gun there, it's illegal to carry a gun there.

So a cop sees you with a gun in the grocery store, cop comes over and says, excuse me, I need to see your permission, your explicit express permission from the grocery store owner to have a gun in here, and if you can't produce that, you go to jail.

So it requires explicit approval, it's not where the owner has specifically prohibited guns.

Several other states have had laws like that for a while.

Texas people talk about how pro gun Texas is all the time.

I laugh about that a little bit.

And if you listen to the Gun Guy show, you've heard me say it before.

Texas has a lot of restrictions on gun right, so we don't have here in Indiana.

I would not swap our laws, but Texas is any day of the week.

But Texas has a law that if a business owner puts a particular sign up at the entrance, and the sign is prescribed by statute and it says, you know, notice, firearms are prohibited on these property pursuing to Texas Code DA DA DA DA, and anyone found a possession of a gun on these premises is subject to immediate arrest and prosecution.

I'm paraphrasing.

That's generally what it says, and you go to jail for that if you violate that sign.

That's what's different than Indiana.

Indiana.

I have kind of a hobby of violating no gun signs.

Business puts a sign up says no guns allowed.

Oh look at that and say, well, thank you, no, thank you.

If I have a compelling need to go there or desire to go there, I'll go there.

I'll just make sure my guns concealed because I'm not breaking a law.

If I ignore that sign.

That's exactly what happened with Eli Dicken and the Greenwood Park mall.

And we had some idiots in the national media, including a sunny host in Moron on the View who came out and said, I don't know what anybody's celebrating.

He was illegally in the mall with a gun because it was a no gun zone, no gun free zone.

No, it was not illegal.

Shannon Watts, who founded Mom's Demand Action, she founded it, by the way, as Million Moms for Gun Control, but when they were about nine hundred and eighty thousand dollars shy of a million on people who would even like their Facebook page, they got ridiculed so harshly they decided to change the name to Mom's Demand Action.

He didn't have anywhere close to a million people.

They were trying to pattern it after the Million Moms March, I'm sure, which was pretty questionable in terms of numbers as well.

But the bottom line with the Greenwood Park Mall shooting is that Eli Dick and my friend and client did not break any law by ignoring the sign.

Well, that's where the problem with hawaiis all comes in, because you actually need express permission.

How do we see that?

How do I see this unfolding?

Or do I think this is going to go?

That's what we'll talk about when we come back.

Join the discussion.

Give us a call.

Three one seven two three nine ninety three ninety three.

If you're on YouTube, I haven't looked at it yet, I just opened it up, but you can go to the chat feature and uh participate in a discussion there.

We've also got we've always got some knowledgeable people sharing information on the chat feature on YouTube.

You can see the show air also on video if you're so inclined.

But right now we're taking a break.

Join the discussion.

Give us a call here at the studio, producer Jack.

We'll get you right on the air.

Three one seven two three nine ninety three ninety three.

That's three one seven two three nine ninety three ninety three.

This is Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WIBC.

Second to nine on this second amendight.

This is the Gun Guy with Guy Ralford on ninety three WYBZ.

Welcome back.

I'm Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WYBCY.

We've had Brian call in so let's go to the phone lines and Brian, welcome to the Gun Guy Show.

Hi.

I've heard you talk before about being able to or maybe being able to take certain felonies and.

Being able to get.

It to where Yeah, you can get it.

Yeah, we call that expungement most of the time, and for some felonies we can seal it off your record, and for several more it remains a public record, but we can restore your gun rights.

So yeah, absolutely, do you have a question about that?

Yes, I do.

I have a Class C felony for child molest from nineteen eighty nine.

That's the only thing I've ever pad on my record.

Okay, and I'm sorry, did you say child molest?

Yes?

Okay, and listen.

Unfortunately, as I mentioned, there's several classes of crimes that cannot be expungshed.

One of those is a whole series of sex related crimes that follow within a particular chapter and write in the expungement statue it says, you know this does not apply to and then it lists a bunch of different chapters of criminal offenses, and one of those is a long section that contains various subsections of different crimes, and if you'd want to call the office.

I can look it up and confirm it.

Because there are some low level things I think it's like some voyeurism type stuff and whatnot where that doesn't apply.

But the more significant things, and if I had to guess, and I've even just looked at this recently, what we're talking about here, Brian, we would not be able to expunge.

But if you want to call the office during the week, I can look up your record, see exactly what the specific offense was, and look at whether that's in the chapter that I'm talking about here.

But there are certain things like official misconduct.

You know, if you're a political electee or you hold a political office and take a bribe you get convicted of that, you can't expunge that.

Several categories of crimes, including any crime that resulted in a serious bodily injury.

Get this, you can expunge it.

It has to be ten years, where normally it's eight for most other felonies.

It has to be ten years since the date of your conviction, and you have to have prior written approval from the prosecutor in the county where the conviction occurred.

That approves from the prosecutor's perspective agrees with that expungement on the front end, and the judge will not even consider it without prior written permission.

That's just for any filmily that resulted in serious bodily injury.

And I actually believe it or not.

I think the legislature was pretty smart in how they wrote that, in the sense that I had nothing to do with it when they wrote it, but they it would be very easy.

And I'm sure that the law in other states and several other states reads that if you're convicted of a crime that involve serious bodily injury to another person, you can't expunge that at all.

And I like the idea that it's a high bar and it's damn rare that prosecutors are going to agree to it.

But I had one, just by way of example, that a guy was convicted of an OWI causing serious bodily injury and the person and obviously right away that that sounds bad, right, and it is bad, And I don't minimize that in any way, shape or form.

But the way it turned out is the person was just barely over the point oh eight.

I mean literally, like right at point oh eight or point oh nine and the accident was actually caused by the other driver.

In other words, you know, you couldn't point to the drunk driving that says that caused him to make an error driving, which is what caused the wreck which resulted in the injury.

The serious injury to the other person is a person didn't make any mistakes driving.

And listen, I don't handle o WI cases, so I'm far from an authority on this.

But if you're intoxicated and you're in a wreck and somebody gets hurt, prosecutor does not bear the burden improving that the wreck was your fault.

That may be that may be relevant to a civil case where people weren't suing each other over injuries or damage to vehicles or whatever else.

But the way the law reads, one, you're operating a motor vehicle and secondly, your operation while intoxicated resulted in an accident, simply meaning if you weren't in your car on the road, the accident wouldn't have happened with you in it.

And there may be some OWI lawyers.

The statue is called operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, So a lot of lawyers call it OWI instead of DUI, obviously standing for driving while intoxicated.

That's not the way the statute reads in Indiana.

That's the reason you hear different acronyms.

But there may be an ow eye lawyer out there that'll call and correct me.

But that's the way I've always understood it.

So in that circumstance where the wreck was not my client's fault, this is like fifteen years ago, quit drinking on the spot, actually had to serve some time, had since done great things with his life, contributing member of society, and and was just barely over that limit, so that it was a tragedy for everybody involved.

The prosecutor's office, it's a county way up in northern Indiana.

UH agreed with it and said, you know, I think the person after all this time, given what else they've done in their lives, and I wrote this great, big, long It was almost a brief.

It was a letter explaining, you know, all the good things this guy done with his life and how he turned things around, and he had sincere remorse over what had happened and was now helping other people.

UH in a lot of different ways in his community and and they agreed to it.

So anyway, that's a much longer answer than Brian was looking for.

But no, there are broad categories of of convictions felonies that cannot be expunged, and unfortunately it sounds like Brian's conviction falls within one of those.

Uh and and and and you can understand the legislature's thinking on that, although again I've also heard some stories uh where they create some sympathy for the person who who was convicted, because are a lot of these people absolute predators who deserve much harsher penalties than what they end up getting.

Absolutely hundred percent.

There are also some kind of questionable cases.

In my mind, I don't handle those cases, but where you know you've got I just looked at one for somebody where kid was nineteen and a girl was sixteen, and as I recall, and still got prosecuted.

It's all consensual, et cetera, et cetera.

So you can understand even with some of those why there ought to be perhaps an exception, but depending on the actual conviction and what it was, then no expunements not available.

I'll tell you what.

We're past the bottom of the hour.

Let's take a break.

Here we come back, and we've got more folks on the on the on the on the on the switchboard, so we'll go to the phones here when we come back, give us a call.

Join the discussion.

Three one seven ninety three, ninet seven, ninety three, ninety three.

This is Guy Raylford on The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WIBC.

The show about gun rights, gun safety and responsible gun ownership.

This is the Gun Guy with Guy Ralford on ninety three WYPC.

And welcome back.

I'm Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WIBC.

So, as I mentioned, we've got Gene on the phone, so let's go back to the phone lines and Gene, welcome to the Gun Guy Show.

Yeah, mister Elford, how are you.

Good, sir?

You're doing all right?

Oh, not too bad?

Hey, I was talking to you about a new firearm for police officers.

He makes a really.

Good points on Twitter.

Yeah, I no pun intended.

I kind of shot you down there a little bit.

Uh well, but but yeah, and Gene, for folks who don't follow me or you on Twitter, the GENA come up with an idea that essentially thinking that tasers the police deploy fairly often sometimes that are ineffective.

So Gene came ups like, right, yeah.

I don't know, I've seen them.

I've seen him be very effective and very quickly.

But it was the idea of a one a new gauge of shotgun and eleven gauge where it'd being over and under and you'd have a rubber bullet in one chamber and a bean background in another chamber, and a shorter barrel could be carried on body like a taser.

And Gene wanted to know what I thought, and uh, and I kind of shot him down a little bit that, Uh.

The problems I had, first of all, was a five inch barrel with an eleven gauge, So you're talking about bigger than a twelve gage the way gauges were, right, So it's going to be a monster to shoot and five with a five inch barrel, it's going to break your wrist and put out a fireball, and it's not going to have enough powder burn to generate much velocity.

And you've already got a less lethal round like a rubber bullet or a bean bag and it's not Plus there are standoff distances.

I've had a case it's specifically involving a standoff distance where a bean bag shotgun and it's a full length shotgun, and a police officer used and one of the biggest issues in the case was that he shot someone from inside the standoff distance according to the prosecution, which was excessive force according to the prosecution.

I was defending the police officer because the manufacturer said, whatever you do, don't shoot anybody closer than twenty five feet with this bean background, and he was well within that.

So when you're using a taser gene, you're typically you know, hands on or close to it, or somebody's fleeing or resisting, but there's still you know, a couple of arm lengths away.

That's when tasers get used a lot.

And I'm sure rubber bullets, by the way, have standoff distances too.

I've not investigated that as thoroughly, so you could even use it up close to somebody, which kind of with a five inch barrel, now you suddenly have a gun with no application.

So anyway, I didn't didn't mean to be negative.

I just saw more more minuses than pluses.

I get it.

I'm glad you came up with them.

I escaped without them.

Hey, I am also a customer from you.

You did some expungements from me.

Oh cool, And I'd just like to tell everybody that it was so easy to do.

I twittered you, you said, hey, call me.

I called you on my way home from work, handled all my business over the internet.

Yeah.

Never met you in my life.

I still have never met you.

We got your records, Yeah, in three counties.

Yeah, three counties.

I was a little wild when I was young and not really intelligent.

You know, Gene, A lot of us were wild when we were young.

It just some of us got caught more than the other.

So I'm with you, but thank you for the kind words.

I did not pay Jean, by the way to call in with that.

But that's a good example of where, well, you know, people got into some thing a long, long time ago, they now regret.

They've now changed their life, they've turned their life around, and that's what the expungement's all about.

A lot of a lot of people call the expungement statute the second class or excuse me, second class, the second chance statute, and that's exactly how I look at it.

But you know, the law says, specifically here in Indiana you know you made some mistakes back when you've had a clean record now for at least eight years for most felony convictions and a lot of misdemeanors, it's five years, and and you otherwise eligible.

You paid all your fines, fees, court costs, you got a clean record for the last X number of years.

Then hey, let's wipe that off your record and let's restore your constitutional rights.

That's why I always say I enjoyed doing them because I really do.

Well.

Hey, I haven't given you my prediction on what I think is going to happen on this Hawaii case that's now talking about Wolford versus Lopez.

It's been accepted by the Supreme Court.

We'll get into that and wrap up our number one here of the Gun Guy Show.

Hey, we've had great callers so far, so give us a call, join the discussion three one seven two three nine ninety three ninety three.

That's three one seven ninety three ninety three, or jump on YouTube participate in the chat there as well.

Uh.

In the meantime, we'll be right back.

This is Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WYBC.

Your rights, your responsibilities, your guns.

This is the Gun Guy with Guy Ralford on ninety three WYPC.

And welcome back.

I'm Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WIBC.

So I have a lot of confidence in what the Supreme Court is going to do with his Wolford v.

Lopez case that they just accepted Sir shar rari on.

Now.

Look, that's not going to come anytime soon.

The way that works is, UH, there's briefing, UH, there's scheduling of or argument.

There's then a long delay period while a justice is writing an opinion.

Sometimes they can sort of punt on a case in the sense that they don't rule on the merits.

They can find something that needs to be addressed at a lower court or kick it back to the lower court for some finding that's necessary for the Supreme Court to issue a substantive ruling, but usually not, And if they're going to do that, they typically don't accept sorcierrari to begin with.

So it can happen.

But I'm expecting a substantive ruling on the merits on this one, and I think it's going to be a win for two way.

I think it's going to be a huge win in Hawaii because again, what they're doing is they're nominally following the ruling in the Bruin decision, but doing it kicking and screaming and doing everything they can to completely gut any real meaning and effect of that Bruined decision in Hawaii.

Other words, if you're going to if you have a fundamental right to carry a handgun in public, as the Brewing decision says you do, but any place you're going to go in public cannot include any privately owned property unless you've got what a letter in your pocket from the property owner saying it's okay.

I mean maybe if you have a favorite restaurant or bar or local shop, then you know the owner and you can get that express permission that's required by the Hawaii statute, then okay as to those places, but hey, don't go anywhere else because you're looking at going to jail.

It completely guts the right that Supreme Court says you have to carry a gun in public.

And that's obvious, but that's what most of these states that had may issue systems.

I'm talking about New York, California, and New Jersey.

I believe Washington and Oregon Hawaii certain they're they're using this language.

And that's why the Supreme Court justices when they write opinions, you know, when their clerks write drafts and the justices finalize them, they have to be just so damn careful about any explanation or any exception that they throw in there, because lower courts, who are predisposed to ignore the ruling of the Supreme Court or to circumvent it in any way possible, we'll seize on any language like that.

And again that the fact that the Court said, well, we're not saying that there's a right to carry everywhere, because states can prohibit firearms in certain firearms in certain sensitive places like schools.

Okay, by finding there's a constitutional right to carry a hand get in public is not overturning the Gun Free School Zones Act.

And they wanted to say that, okay, makes sense, but they didn't give any guidance on what exactly constitutes a sensitive area where a state may ban firearms.

And it just gave one example if I recall the exact language of the decision correctly, and I'll say you a perfect example of the exact same thing, and that is when the Supreme Court in the Heller case that found for the first time there is an individual right to bare arms protected by the Second Amendment, not created, but protected by the Second Amendment.

Said a couple of things.

Justice Scalia said, well, this doesn't mean that everyone has a right to carry any firearm they wish any gun anywhere.

Also said certain long standing prohibitions like saying felons can't possess guns aren't meant to be overturned.

And then they said, and that certain classes of firearms, and they said most useful for military the sixteen of the like, well, what do you think courts did with that language?

So well, they are fifteen is kind of like in M sixteen.

So there you go.

Now it's automatic versus semi automatic.

But nah, no big deal on that exact language, which I don't think was meant to be particularly impactful by Justice Scalia or the other justices who voted in favor of that ruling.

Boom then use to uphold and find constitutional so called assault weapon bands all over the country.

So a little bit of language like that, and then what do we need?

Then we need another Supreme Court decision to clarify what they meant with that language.

Tell you what we're coming up on the top of the hour.

We're going to take a break.

Care will be back for hour number two of The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WIBC.

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.

Boom boom boom boom bang bang bang bang boom boom boom boom bang.

Bang bo Guy Ralford on ninety three WYBC.

And welcome back for hour number two of The Gun Guy Show here on ninety three WIBC.

Listen, you heard from the WIBC newsroom.

And I will certainly defer to the professionals whose job it is to report news.

But there's been awful lot of commentary on social media and I posted about this.

I reposted a story by Fox fifty nine early on, and then that got updated and I reposted this.

This is primarily on Facebook, but it involves the stabbing and reportedly now the arrest of Mark Sanchez.

And listen, if you don't know who Mark Sanchez is, he probably don't follow football real carefully, but he was a USC quarterback on a really good USC team and then was drafted in the first round of the NFL draft by the Jets.

Played there and then bounced around quite a bit.

He still has one of the all time great blooper or not top ten clips that you're ever going to see out there, which notoriously is known as I believe I'm ninety nine percent sure this is Mark Sanchez, known as the butt fumble, where he's running the ball as quarterback and actually is kind of running bent over pretty low and because he's stumbling a bit, and then he runs into the back and or the butt of one of his own offensive linemen, which knocks him over backward and he fumbles the ball and the other team picks the ball up and runs back for a touchdown what they call it scoop and score.

And so he's got a lot of grief over that.

He played.

Was in the NFL for a couple few different teams over I believe ten years, so he was around.

But now he works for Fox Fox Sports and was in town here in Indy to be part of the broadcast team.

He does color commentating commentating for Fox for the Colts Raiders game Sunday at one o'clock.

And the first news I saw of this, and I saw it on social media first, is that he was stabbed and people were speculating that he was a victory of a robbery victim, I should say, of a robbery downtown Indy.

And my first reaction, like a lot of people's, was oh, man, what a black eye for Indianapolis.

I mean, downtown obviously has degraded significantly under the Hawkst administration.

There's just no question about that.

The number of homeless people, and the number of unsupervised teenagers, a lot of whom are illegally carrying guns, a lot of whom use those guns and do so right here downtown.

And the number of downtown shootings and other attacks we've had in the last number of years, particularly in the last three or four, I think, is to some degree gotten out of control.

It's one of the reasons a lot of us that come downtown regularly, and I certainly do while I'm here every Monday for Monday Gun Day on Hammer or Nigel.

Although I can call that in if necessary, we generally do it in the studio, And obviously I'm down here on Saturday late afternoon and evening to do my show, and then I'm down going to the new Justice Center down I used to which is down off the Southeastern now a little way from downtown.

But for years and years, I mean for decades, came downtown to go to court in the City County Building.

So I'm down here a bunch.

I feel like Indianaposts to some degree is my city, even though my office is in Carmel and I live in Scienceville, because I'm down here all the time.

I work down here, and i have a job right here on the Circle that I'm doing right now.

And so watching the degradation of downtown Indianapolis, it has just been sad to me.

And the number of homeless, crazy people wandering around and relieving themselves on the sidewalks and passed out in doorways and all of that is just concerning enough.

But then the amount of violent crime we've had.

Hell, we had one shooting where police estimated just down three hundred South Meridian, I believe police estimated there were one hundred shots fire.

Remember this a hotel I believe was the Hampton End down there had some bullets go through windows, and there were a whole number of different individuals who were all firing off shots.

And that was three blocks off Washington Street, four blocks from where I'm broadcasting from right now.

So anyway, I read this report Mark Sanchez, who was you know, a bit of a B level celebrity, but a but a celebrity, celebrity nonetheless in town to do an NFL game to be broadcast on television and gets stabbed in downtown indian This was reportedly around twelve thirty am Saturday night or excuse me, Friday night.

And uh, and it was just outside low Miller's Pub, is what I'm now saying.

And so a lot most people thought this was a robbery, and we thought, oh my god, what a black eye for Indianapolis.

And that was my comment.

I didn't offer any substantive analysis of what actually had happened and who was at fall.

I just said, this is not a good look.

I said, this is a horrible look for Indianapolis that a guy like that is here visiting and gets stabbed and not unlike by the way, when we had a judicial conference, we had an Indiana judges conference here a few years ago, and there were three judges, two men and a women who were out after hours, you know, going to the clubs having a bunch of cocktails.

Well, that's what a lot of people do when they go to conferences out of town or in town for that matter, depending on where they live, and they end up getting shot.

And then lo and behold, it comes out that at least there was more than one side of that story, and there was some evidence apparently that they were the aggressors, or at least some of them were, that created the whole circumstance.

And now it's coming down that Mark Sanchez.

And again I'll defer to the news department on this, but I'm reading.

First of all, I'm listening to what we're reporting here on WIBC and John Herrick in his newsroom, he's our news director here.

They do a fabulous, fabulous job, and that's where we ought to get your news, not from a guy who comments on Second Amendment issues for a living down here at WIBC.

But in reading the Fox fifty nine article that just updated, as police have now arrested Mark Sanchez and apparently battery with bodily injury and public intoxication, and apparently everything he's been arrested for is a misdemeanor, and I've not heard a report of the other guy who actually did the stabbing being arrested.

And the story that's coming out is the other guy was delivering food, a sixty nine year old, which sounds really, really old, except I'm getting ready to turn sixty eight next month, so sixty nine doesn't accept as old to me as he used to.

But for most people, you think of that as being pretty damn old, and not necessarily somebody who's going to go out and get into fights on the sidewalk.

But he was delivering food, had parked in an alley, and according to the report I'm reading, Sanchez told him he couldn't park where he was parked.

I have no idea why Sanchez would care.

Maybe he was in another view vehicle and was trying to get through the alley.

I have no idea, and I won't speculate.

But then, according to the man who was listed as the victim in the original IMPD report, Sanchez pursued him, attacked him, and there was pepper spray used at some point, which was not effective, and the man then pulled a knife, and according to him, anyway, and we'll see what facts come out in court, defended himself and that's what got Mark Sanchez stabbed.

But Mark Sanchez now has been placed under arrest.

So I just think that's interesting, and I think there are a couple of lessons in this.

And again I didn't draw any conclusions.

I didn't form any opinions.

In fact, one former follower friend on Facebook, I was just saying, you know, this is not a good look for Indianapolis, which I don't care who was at fault, it's still true.

A celebrity comes here and gets stabbed downtown Indy, that's not a good look.

But I made offered no opinion on who was at fault, and certainly di and try to make it sound like I knew all the facts, and somebody said we got to knew all the facts before you offer an opinion.

I didn't offer any opinions other than to say it's not a good look for Indianapolis, which is true regardless of fault.

But there is a lesson in this, which is one that early reports are always just that, and you know, the faster something appears, and and there's so many in the media of the news types, and we're not guilty of this here, our newsroom.

Again, I'll brag on them all day long.

They are professionals, They do a great job, and they consider being right more important than being first.

And that's that's a balance.

That's a struggle that all reporters, TV stations, newspapers wherever it is now with social media booming, put something out there for public consumption in milliseconds, and so they're always they're always having to balance those things first, or at least to early versus right, correct, factually accurate.

And man, this story in about an hour, certainly in a couple of hours, went from Mark Sanchez robbery victim to Mark Sanchez aggressor and arrested.

Now again, Mark Sanchez has apparently not made a statement, and I know from having defended a lot of criminal cases over a lot of years, that he may be getting legal advice to not give a statement, and he may have a much better story than the other guy did about what actually happened, and where IMPD is just relying on one side of the story, and that's what they're going to use to write up what's called a probable cause affidavit, a prosecutor uses then to actually decide what, if any charges to be filed.

You're getting one side of the story to the extent the other side hasn't made a statement, So there's still more.

There are still more facts to come out.

But it's interesting to me and would be an interesting example of the application of law of self defense here in Indiana and something I talk about whenever I'm teaching my Indiana Gun Law class, what we call Essentials of Indiana Gun Law.

I spend a lot of time, a couple of hours on self defense.

And people talk about using a weapon against the quote unquote unarmed person.

Well, so and so had a knife, so and so was unarmed.

Is that definitive?

Does that answer the question as to whether you're entitled to use force and self defense?

You'll hear police officers being criticized, well, police shot an unarmed man?

Well, is that dispositive?

Does that end the inquiry?

Are you done?

Well?

Cop had a gun?

Other person?

Do not have a gun?

Not justified?

No, No, and no.

You have to have a reasonable belief you're preventing if to use deadly forced I think stabbing someone.

And again, the article I just read said Mark Sanchez was stabbed in the chest.

He stab someone in the chest.

Is that serious?

Excuse me?

Is that deadly force didn't kill him?

In fact, I understand he's in stable condition.

But if you stab somebody in the chest, is that deadly force irrespective of whether they die?

Oh?

Hell yeah it is, because deadly force is defined in Indiana as force that creates a substantial risk of death or that creates a likelihood of serious bodily injury.

Is getting stabbed in the chest serious bodily injury?

Yes, And there's a statutory definition for serious bodily injury and getting stabbed in the chest certainly qualifies.

Well.

So the delivery driver, according to a one sided police report, anyway, stab Mark Sanchez in the chest.

And I'm not hearing about any weapons that Sanchez had, although the other person reportedly had facial facial lastrations.

So if the other person has empty hands and you have a knife, are you always guilty?

Can you never claim self defense in that circumstance?

No?

Hell no, hell no.

It depends on whether you reasonably believe you're preventing serious bodily injury to you or a third person in order to use deadly force and self defense out on the street like this, not talking about you in your home or some of the other Castle Doctor and applications I talked more about last week.

Can someone with empty hands cause serious bodily injury to a sixty nine year old guy?

Well, hell yes, And it's very circumstance driven.

Who's the sixty nine year old?

Like I said, I'm getting ready to turn sixty eight, But Mark Sanchez looks like a pretty fit guy.

Not sure how that would go.

I would probably be a little pessimistic how I'd do, even though I've spent some time training in hand to hand and have done a little bit of that here and there.

That much of an age difference thirty years, twenty some years, Yeah, I'm probably getting my butt kick.

Could he cause serious bodi of the injury to me as a reasonably fit older guy myself, Yeah, I'm sure he could.

So it's not despositible.

But it's gonna be an interesting It's gonna be an interesting case to watch as it plays out in terms of the application of Indiana's law on self defense, because if the if the current, if my current understanding of the facts holds up, Yeah, somebody with a knife versus somebody with empty hands, can that still be self defense?

Oh?

Hell yes?

Absolutely it can.

I've had that case, won that case, got that case dismissed, but we'll see how that goes.

I'll tell you what, I didn't mean to spend that much time talking about that issue, but I just thought it was interesting, and I think people are going to be reading and talking about that for quite some time as the case unfolds.

Right now or past the three quarter or excuse me, the quarter hour, We're gonna take a litle bit of a breakare It's Guy Ralford on the Gun Guy Show on ninety three WYBC.

Now you've got a gun guy, Guy Ralford on ninety three WYBC.

And welcome back.

I'm Guy Ralford on the Gun Guys Show on ninety three WYBC.

I'll tell you what.

We've still got time here to take some calls, so let's go to I think it's Penny on the phone lines.

Penny, welcome to the Gun Guy Show.

Hey guy, I'm a longtime listener for first time caller.

Okay, well thanks for calling.

I want to ask a question.

My dad passed away years ago.

I obtained a bunch of his guns.

I probably have close to probably fifty of his guns.

Huh.

I did bring those all back he lived in Virginia Beach.

I live here in Carnway, Indiana.

I did bring those back here.

I have them walked up, but I don't have any small kids at my house?

Just me, Am I able?

Do I need to do anything legally with them?

Like?

Do I need to register them?

Am I able to like carry the handgun?

I do have a you know, carry handgun lifetime right before they decided we didn't need it in Indiana.

I did apply for that and get that.

Uh huh.

But I'm just wondering, am I do I need to do anything legally as far as take the gun somewhere and have them registered?

Yeah?

No, Yeah, Penny, I can answer that for you.

The good news is that we don't have gun registration here in Indiana.

And if you're following what's going on in Canada right now, it's a really beautiful example of why we don't ever want registration.

Well, why I will fight against it tooth and nail because on their so called assault weapons, which include some garden variety pistols and shotguns as well, by the way, as well as some of our omatic rifles.

They first decided they were going to ban sale and import then they were going to have a registration requirement and several tons of note, hundreds of thousands of Canadians followed the law and registered their so called assault weapons.

And now what are they having.

They're having a mandatory buyback program, which is just what it sounds like.

There may or may not be some compensation involved, but you're going to turn them in and possession of them after that is illegal, so it's confiscation, make no mistake, So we don't.

The good news is there is no federal registration of firearms outside of the National Firearms Act, and I'll talk about that here in a minute, but that has very limited applications.

So for your garden variety rifles, pistols, and shotguns, which if I had to guess, that's what we're talking about, that your dad had, that you've inherited, we have no registration in Indiana.

And as far as you know, carrying one of the handguns, as long as it's a legal handgun, in other words, you know it was never stolen, and I'm not suggesting for a minute any of this applies.

You know, it doesn't have the serial number filed off of it or something like that.

If it's a legal firearm that's lawful for you to possess.

And if you have a licensed to carry handgun, we already know you've passed the background check to get your lifetime license, so I'm sure you can lawfully possess that firearm.

You can carry any handgun you can lawfully possess in Indiana.

In some states they actually tie your concealed carry permit or can concealed carry pistol license, or a lot of different names for these things across the country.

Ours, as you correctly said, Penny, is the Indian a licensed carry handgun.

You can carry any handgun that you can lawfully possess, and it's not tied to a particular gun as a far to say.

In some states it says, okay, no, you've done tests, you've done training with this particular gun, and pass the qualification course, and so now you can carry that particular gun, and it's make model zerial number, and you can carry that gun and that gun only, and you can you can qualify or have more than one gun potentially apply to your license if you want to carry different ones.

But they're specific to individual firearms.

Not in Indiana, and we have no registration for again, garden variety, non NFA rifles, pistols, and shotguns.

So there's nothing for you to do there.

Now.

The only thing that you know, whenever I'm answering this question, people call my office or people come by for a meeting we've scheduled and they want you know, they're talking about inheritance and that type thing along the same lines that you are, Penny.

And one thing I'll always say is, we want to make sure that you don't have any NFA firearms that your dad had.

Now, what are we talking about there?

We're talking about machine guns, and that's guns that are actually automatic.

You pull the trigger and hold the trigger back and it keep shooting.

Machine gun or suppressors, which are actually considered firearms under federal law, and so silencers quote unquote, firearm mufflers, suppressors, whatever name you want to use.

Those are NFA regulated.

Short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns so shotguns with barrels less than eighteen inches, rifles with barrels less than sixteen inches.

Those are regulated by the National Firearms Act of nineteen thirty four and have to be registered, and unless they're registered to a trust, they're only registered to an individual and nobody else can possess those unless that you get the government through the ATF's approval to transfer those from one individual to another.

Now, we do a lot of NFA trusts in my office.

I'm getting far afield now from your question.

But that's to allow multiple whether it's shooting buddies or family members or whatever anybody wants to do with their trust.

You can have several co trustees that allows multiple people to possess NFA items.

But but, but, Penny, if I had to guess, you don't have any reason to think he's got any machine guns or suppressors or.

I think I think I do have four akm.

Yeah, I mean an AK forty seven that's semi automatic is fine, okay, And if I had to guess, it likely is a lot of them have selector switches on them where you can see.

Now it may not be in English, but that you have you have safe fire and full or auto or something else, and that maybe in Chinese or Hungarian or Russian or something else with an AK forty seven.

But but no, unless it's actually a machine gun and is fully automatic, that's not something to worry about.

So if they're non NFA regulated, there's no registration and there's nothing for you to do.

You can carry in those handguns you'd like.

So a longer answer again than what a caller was probably looking for but wanted to be thorough.

Uh, let's take a break.

Care at the bottom of the air.

We'll come back well answer any additional calls we get for the rest of our time here on Tonight's The Gun Guy Show.

Give us a call.

Three one seven nine ninety three ninety three three one seven three ninety three.

This is Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WYBC.

Second to nine on this second amendment, This is the Gun Guy with Guy Ralford, WYBC.

And welcome back on Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WYBC.

You know, we had a church shooting and it was actually last Sunday, so it was just the day after I last did The Gun Guy Show, so I wasn't able to comment on it.

And it's something that that strikes me in a couple different ways.

One is just it's infuriating, it's it's maddening, it's a little scary.

But it also another example of something that makes me glad I live in Indiana, and that is that a person went to a church of Latter day Saints and I believe it was Grand Blank, Michigan, and first rammed his truck into the building and set it on fire and then began shooting.

And you have officers who responded pretty quick, but still a number of people I believe it was four inside the church were killed.

Another eight were injured.

Whether from the fire or the truck ramming through the wall or gunfire is not apparently clear, but it was clearly a shooting and at least some people were injured and or killed from someone shooting at people who were just at their house of worship of choice.

And listen, that's the reason why I've had a number of church security teams.

I'll actually just set up another one of these meetings with a local Catholic church here in the Indianapolis area where they want some training on the laws surrounding the use of force and self defense for their church security team because they've decided to have an armed church security team.

And I've actually done the firearms training for church security teams a number of times here in Century Indiana as well, and that training is available from other sources, including folks who really have more time than I do anymore to do that.

But it's fun to do and I enjoy doing it.

But for years, I mean for a lot of years, I had people contact me who are associated with churches and say, we want to talk to you about setting up an armed church security team to keep our worshipers safe while they're here at our school.

Excuse me, at our church.

The school issue is going to come out here in just a minute.

And a lot of times I have a very priminary conversation with them and say, well, okay, there's one hurdle we need to get over, and that is is there a school on the same grounds or in the same building.

And listen, as I always say in my gun law class when I'm teaching it, you know, how many Catholic churches have a parochial school on the same grounds pretty much all of them?

Right, I'm not Catholic, but that's my understanding.

And licensed daycares?

How many churches have a licensed daycare?

Now, there are some different licensing issues around churches, and I've been educated on this a little bit more over the years, but if it's a state licensed daycare on the same grounds or in the same building, then that qualifies as a school.

So if you have a school on the same grounds or in the same building, and or the church is co owned with the school on the same land, then the church as well as the school is all church, excuse me, is all school property.

And while we've never had a statute in Indiana that says it's illegal to have a gun in a church, there is a statute it's illegal under most situations to have a gun in a school.

And if there's a church and a school on the same property, the church is also a school property and you can't carry a gun there.

Even if it's Sunday and there are no kids in the school, even if the schools closed, even if the kids won't be back till Monday, it doesn't matter.

It's still school property and you can't have a gun on school property.

And so what we fought for for years and years, and it started with the late Senator Jack Sandlin, a good, good guy and we're gonna miss him, and we just lost him last year.

But it started with his Senate Bill thirty three here, three or four years ago, or excuse me, three or four years before.

We ultimately got it passed.

But then we we took his and we called it church carry, and again a little bit of a misleading name, because there's not a lot of decision you can't carry in a church, But it's addressing the school issue, which for hundreds and hundreds of churches.

We're talking about all houses of worship here, So whether it's a mosque or a temple, or a synagogue, or a cathedral or a church, if it's a house of worship, this all applies.

And there are hundreds and hundreds where people could not lawfully carry a gun.

I know of people who just decided that they valued their lives more than they were going to be worried about possibly being prosecuted.

But that's a shame for anybody to have to be put in that position.

And you ought to be able to defend yourself, your family, your fellow worshippers when you go to church without fear of being prosecuted for a felony.

So finally in twenty nineteen we got church carry passed here in Indiana.

What it says is now that if you're attending a worship service or religious ceremony in a house of worship, or if you're performing your duties of employment or your volunteer duties as an employee or volunteer of a house of worship.

So would that apply to a church security team.

Oh?

Hell yes.

So, either you're attending a worship service or a religious ceremony in a house of worship, or you're performing your duties as a volunteer or employee of the church the house of worship, then you can lawfully possess a gun there, irrespective of it being on school property.

And that's been the law here since twenty nineteen, and listen is a big deal for a lot of people.

It affected where my wife and I chose to go to church.

You know, we decided we were going to switch churches.

We started looking at other churches.

We absolutely love our church.

Now have to drive to Fishers from Zionceville to go to church, but it's worth it.

I love our church.

And if you want to contact me offline on social media and ask me what church it is, I'm glad to tell you.

But in looking for a church, one of the first things we had to say before twenty nineteen, we had to inquire was this place have a school on the grounds.

Does it have a school in the same building.

Is there a license tate care?

Is it licensed by the state?

And if the answer to those things were yes, then then suddenly we're in that dilemma where am I risking the felony every time I go to church?

Because listen, nowly do I carry every time I go to church?

I take an extra magazine over what I usually carry?

And why is is that being and gun owners are accused of us all the time?

Is that because I'm scared, because I'm paranoid.

I mean, I'm walking into church going, oh no, someone's going to kill me any moment, of course not.

I simply have the realization that churches are targets.

And we've seen churches as to targets for years and years and years.

And the Church of the shooting at the Church of Latter day Saints in Grand Blank, Michigan here less than a week ago is just the latest example.

You had kids attending school and going to church on the same grounds.

At the Annunciation I'm going to screw up the name Annunciation.

I believe it was called church in Minnesota, kids shot through the church windows.

We had two different church shootings where heroes emerged one of them in White Settlement, Texas, the other one in Sutherland Springs, Texas.

There were within a year or two of each other.

And you remember the heroism of Jack Wilson who shot a guy came into a church sanctuary, started shooting worshippers, and Jack, from as I recall, fifteen yards away forty five feet, made one shot, made a head shot.

That's the marksmanship up there with Eli Dicken.

But the point is he had to stop a church shooting with deadly force and was able to do so because he was armed.

In Sutherland Springs, that's where a gentleman named Williford was actually in his home across the street from a church, heard the shooting going on, where twenty some people lost their laws, grabbed his own rifle, got into a shootout outside the church, chased the bad guy.

Bad guy ends up crashing and dying because Stephen Wiliford shot him, so he wasn't in the church.

If he'd have been in the church and armed where someone else would have been very good likelihood twenty some people wouldn't have died.

So carrying in church is just a realization that churches are threats because there are people are targets and subject to threats because there are people out there that will target your church and target you in that church simply because of how you worship and who you decide to worship and what your beliefs are.

And unfortunately, there are way too many people out there who, simply because you have different beliefs than they do, want to kill you, your children, your family doesn't matter.

Is that paranoid?

Is that living in fear?

Just the opposite.

If I'm cooking with an open flame, do I want a fire extinguisher somewhere close?

Yes?

Does that mean I'm afraid to cook?

No?

I like to cook.

I cook all the time.

I really like cooking over an open flame.

It's not a bad idea to have a fire extinguisher around.

A gun and a fire extinguisher I put in exactly the same category.

It's simply being prepared.

So another example of what makes me proud to be in Indiana that that church carry bill I fought for for many years, as many other people did, and Ben Small's Republican from Auburn ended up carrying it forward.

In twenty nineteen, it got lumped in with my Self Defense Immunity Bill and changing our four year license to a five year license at some other pro Second Amendment bills.

We started calling that the omnibus gun Bill back in twenty nineteen, but we got it passed.

It's now the law and you can now lawfully protect yourself, your family, and your fellow worshipers when you go to church.

And so reading a story like the shooting in Grand Blake, Michigan, it makes me, of course sad for those victims and compassionate towards those people who were injured or lost family members, but also makes me damn glad I live in Indiana.

Right now, we're taking a break.

We'll be back for a short segment to wrap up this edition to the Gun Guy Show here on ninety three WYBC, second.

To nine on this Second Amendment.

This is the Gun Guy with Guy Ralford ONEYPC.

And welcome back here for a bit of a short segment.

But thanks to all of our callers.

We have great callers tonight with great questions.

Thanks to the folks who participated in the YouTube chat as they always do.

That's always a lively conversation on there as well.

It's hard to keep up with as I'm doing live radio, but I try to check it out during breaks and respond where I can.

Another ruling came out this last week which I thought was really interesting, and it's a case we want to look it up now.

It's called changed names a little bit because Pam Bondi was substituted as the attorney general who is named in the lawsuit.

But it's FPC, which stands for Firearms Policy Coalition versus Bondi.

And this is down the Northern District of Texas.

And listen, the Northern District of Texas has given us a whole bunch of rulings that have ultimately been really really great for gun owners as they wound themselves through the system.

They gave us a great ruling on bump stocks, which ended up being ultimately affirmed by the US Supreme Court.

I left that out when I was kind of doing my little Supreme Court roundtable at the beginning on pistol braces.

Uh and and and more and uh.

And they've been a great court.

But they've just ruled that the statute that says the federal statute that says you can now not have a gun in a federal facility.

And then there's a regulation that expands that to a parking lot.

But as applied to post offices, the gun is the statute rather than it says you can't carry a gun there is unconstitutional.

Now does that apply to you if you're a member of the Firearms Policy Coalition.

And then another group that was in that is the Second Amendment Foundation.

Both great groups, by the way, who do great things in the court in the courtroom.

That it does I carry in my gun in the courthouse anytime soon?

Probably not.

And let's see that work its way through and help out the rest of us.

Right now, that's the end of this week's show.

Hope you'd enjoyed it.

Hope you come back.

Remember, always shoot straight, always be safe.

This is Guy Ralford on The Gun Guys Show on ninety three WYBC.