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 by.

Guy Ralford on ninety three WYPC.

And good afternoon, and welcome to the gun Guy show here on ninety three WIBC.

What thrilled you with us?

Let's get right into it.

I was just reading on social media about a shooting.

This is in quote unquote Cumberland, really far east side of Indianapolis, in the area of German Church Road and East Washington Street.

And this happened at four point thirty in the morning with reports of a person shot in the one hundred and thirteen hundred block of Tuck Court, again near German Church in East Washington and Cumberland Metropolitan Police Department officers responded and ultimately gave a statement that there was a man found who had been shot in the head.

He was taken to a local hospital in critical condition, and a spokesperson for Cumberland PD said investigators believe the man who was shot was attempting to break into the home and also reported that the shooter, apparently the homeowner, was cooperating with the investigation.

And this story got posted by WTCHR on social media and a lot of folks were commenting, and as I often do, I was going down through the comments on this and it really highlighted for me something I guess a little disappointed in.

I should never assume for a minute that everybody listens to the Gun Guy Show or everybody's coming gone through my Essentials of Indiana gun law class, and so I should not assume that everyone also has been self educated on Indiana's self defense laws.

But the amount of misinformation or really just I think people relying on inaccurate understandings of Indiana self defense law as they're commenting on this shooting, and it just it made me definitely want to want to talk about it.

This just happened yesterday morning at four point thirty in the morning on Friday.

And listen, if you listen to the Gun Guy Show, you you're you've probably already got the correct terms in your head.

Castle doctrine exactly right?

And what is the castle doctrine?

The castle doctrine says that you have the legal justification, would you have the legal ability to defend your home, including with deadly force, if you reasonably believe that deadly force is necessary to either prevent or terminate an unlawful entry into or attack on your dwelling.

And I talk about the statute often, but it's just so important.

I mean, as an advocate for Second Amendment rights, you know there are certain critical moments potentially in a person's life where the Second Amendment becomes very very very important to them, very important to their family, very important to their homes.

And obviously one of the leading examples of that is when someone's trying to break into your home at four point thirty in the morning on East Washington Street and German Church Road, or wherever else it is you happen to be.

And I just want to make sure that people really understand not only what the law is in this area and that applies to this shooting.

And listen, everybody looks at this and said fully justified.

Now a lot of them believe a lot of people, at least commenting on social media, believe that it's fully justified for the wrong reasons.

And a lot of them.

Are you know we're commenting on the WTHR posts that had the link to their article on this and even commenting on how they would respond to law enforcement, to responding law enforcement at the scene, what they would say, what they would not say, and some of them was okay, some of it not so much.

I thought that was just a good opportunity.

And I talked about the castle doctrine here often again.

It's such a critical part of the law anywhere in the country, certainly here in Indiana, and I want to make sure people understand how it works.

And for instance, a lot of people were commenting I would just say I feared for my life and then shut the hell up.

And one person was gracious enough to say I would say, I would say, officer, I've been through a traumatic event, and I'll be willing to talk to you after I've hired guy Relford.

Give a little love to that comment on social media because it was much appreciated.

But there were a lot of other comments.

A lot of people kept talking about just keep repeating I feared for my life, I feared for my life.

I feared for my life, and listen, is that a bad thing?

No?

It's not.

But it tells me that someone doesn't have a complete understanding of Indiana law in this area.

And why is that because the Castle doctrine provision of the Indiana Self Defense Statute.

And I again talk about this often, the castle doctrine component.

And the only reason we call it the castle doctrine is that's not what the legislature called it when they passed it many many, many many years ago.

They called it the Justified Use of Force and self Defense.

And then there are various sub sections of that.

One is the General Self Defense Statute.

Another is the one that applies to you and you're dwelling or home, And by the way, dwelling, what would do your home?

I mentioned very important?

Dwelling can be permanent or temporary, movable or fixed.

What do I mean by all that?

Well, your home, your house, or your apartment where you live, it's listened to on your driver's license, your legal residence, that's obviously your dwelling.

What about when you're staying in a hotel room, that hotel room, not the whole hotel, but the room is your dwelling.

What about when you drive your RV and park your RV in the campground and are sleeping or eating or barbecuing or whatever it is you might be doing in your RV.

That RV is your dwelling.

While you're doing those same things you do in your house, your home, your apartment, or wherever it is you live, eating, drinking, sleeping, cooking, that's your dwelling.

Now when you're driving down the road in your RV, that's your motor vehicle and is treated as a motor vehicle.

Interestingly enough, the castle doctrine applies not only to your dwelling, but you're occupied motor vehicle.

But this was at a private residence as shooting four thirty yesterday morning in Cumberland, east of Indianapolis, and it was where this person lived, all right.

And again the whole provision says, you're justifying using reasonable force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe that force is necessary to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry into or attack on you're dwelling.

We'll stop there where in that.

And that's the whole provision, the whole subsection, except that they add one more line justifying using deadly force with no duty to retreat.

Ah, that's what makes it a stand your ground law.

You don't have to run out the back door if someone breaks into your home.

That no duty to retreat is exactly what makes our law, or at least what makes it follow into the general category of a standard ground law because of the line.

It's one line, no doto to retreat.

But what people don't seem to understand.

And this isn't a horrible thing, and I'm not saying it's going to get somebody put in jail, but people kept saying, I would repeat, I feared for my life.

I feared for my life.

And I've already gone through the whole provisions of the castle doctrine twice.

Where in there did you hear that the person feared for their safety, that they feared death or serious bodily injury.

Now, that's in the general self defense statue.

And to all these people's credit, the general self defense statue also applies to you in your home.

So if you if you use reasonable force, including deadly forced, to prevent serious bodily injury to you or another person, there's nothing that says that doesn't apply to you in your home.

So I feared for my life.

I feared for my life.

Okay, the general self defense statue or or subsection of the statute applies to you in your home as well.

But my point in this is, is it in your home.

That's what makes this your castle doctor, That's what makes it different.

In your home, you don't have to feel injury, you don't have to fear getting hurt, and the person doesn't have to be armed.

And I'm not advocating for more and more people to be violent.

I'm not encouraging you to pull triggers and in lives.

That's not my point at all.

I'm trying to explain how the law functions in this area.

You do not need to fear injury, you do not need to fear harm under the castle doctrine doesn't hurt to apply the general self defense principles as well, that you reasonably believe that deadly force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury, but it's not necessary.

So what is necessary That the person broke in, that they did not have permission to be there, that they kicked your door in, that it was, in other words, an unlawful entry.

That's what's key.

A person came in, they were attempting to get in.

Because the word prevent is in the statute as well.

You can prevent an unlawful entry a person's trying to get in.

Now, this doesn't mean they're just standing in the yard or walking up the driveway.

They're actively attempted to break into your house.

You can prevent an unlawful entry into your home with deadly force.

Has to be unlawful.

When is entry into your home not unlawful when you've given the person a key, when their name's on the lease or the deed, when they're invited, when you've established a custom of them coming in going from your home with no further permission required.

But if this is a stranger, certainly, or even not a stranger, but someone who's not does not have permission to come into your home.

Their names not on the deed, they don't have a key, they don't come and go.

As a matter of custom and practice, they're breaking into your home.

Now that they have to break into your home.

In some statutes they call breaking and entering.

They call the crime of entering someone's home unlawfully.

They call breaking an entery because essentially they have to break something.

In some states, they have to kick the door in, they have to break the lock.

Is that true in Indiana?

No, we have a crime not called breaking and entering in Indiana.

You know it's called Indiana.

It's called residential entry.

What's that?

I mean somebody's unlawfully, without permission, without authorization, has unlawfully entered your home.

They have to break anything, No, they have to kick the door in.

No.

Can they walk through an unlocked door and they have it still be unlawful, Yes, because they don't have permission to be in your home.

And listen, I try to do a very good job of locking all the doors in my house, or all the doors locked in my house all the time.

I would like to say yes, but I have to admit that occasionally I drop the ball on that or someone else in my home.

Does Does that mean someone who walks in through an unlocked door is legally in my home?

No, they're committing the crime of unlawful entry, of residential entry, we call it, and it's an unlawful entry for purposes of the castle doctor.

So my point in all of that is just to reinforce to people what the rules are in your home.

You can prevent or terminate it on an unlawful entry.

The key is that it is in fact an unlawful entry.

Now, the word necessary is critical there too.

And I've mentioned this on the show before.

What if they come in, they see you stand there next to your bed with the eight seventy, and they say, whoh, it's a bad time to be a home invader, and they're running for the front door.

And I use that example in another context talking about a different case not so long ago here on the show.

Well as any force necessary to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry when they're already running out the door, probably not necessary is an important component.

But I wanted to address that situation.

And listen, you know, I'm not one if you listen to the gun guys, you know me well enough to know this.

I'm not one who celebrates any loss of life.

I mean, this person was shot in the head.

They're in critical condition.

I don't know if they're going to survive or not.

And and a lot of people and I, you know, this is so much social media bravado, and I get that a lot of people seem to be celebrating that.

I don't celebrate any of that.

I'm not built.

I wasn't raised by my dad.

The Methodist pastor.

I was not raised to celebrate any loss of life or anybody getting hurt as between a law abiding homeowner minding their own business at four point thirty in the morning and some idiot who just kicked their door in or otherwise broke into their home.

Hey, I'm written for the homeowner every time, and I'm absolutely relieved that it was the bad guy who got shot and not not an innocent person in that home.

But I also want to look at that and say, all right, what's a lesson here?

And I think one of the most important things you can do.

When I talk about this and my self defense classes that I've taught for a lot of years, I think any one of any east scenario liked this.

And if more details come out, and I would love to know more details, I always want to look at these what if scenarios.

In other words, what happened here?

What if that happened at my home at four thirty in the morning, based on where they came in, where the person not only entered the home, but where they went once they entered the home, where would I be in that moment, Well, four thirty in the morning, I'm very likely I'm either in bed a sleep or I'm going to the bathroom.

That's an old guy one of the other.

All right, say I just wandered into the bathroom, I hear the door kick open.

Am I going to be in a position to defend my family in that moment?

I like using those situations to say, what if that happened in my home?

Would I have the same capacity the same where with all same training, same marksmanship, have the same availability of the tools I need to defend my home and my family at four thirty in the morning when it happened, Well, yeah, I mean there's a suppressed spr hanging on my bed front.

But I like to apply the what if scenario to say how would I have respond?

That's what I get out of these I also look at them, obviously from a legal perspective, and say what rules of self defense applot?

And then it's fun to come on the radio and share all of that with you as well.

We're way past the quarter hours.

Time to take a break.

I want to take your calls.

We'll talk about self defense, We'll talk about the Castle doctrine, or anything else Second Amendment related.

Give me a call, join the discussion.

Three one seven two three nine ninety three, ninety three, three one seven two three nine ninety three, ninety three.

There's this Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WYBC.

Second to nine on this second and that this is the Gun Guy with Guy Ralford on three WYBC.

And welcome back.

I'm Guy Ralford on the Gun Guy Show on ninety three w i VC and Chris Witch gears a little bit.

I was reading on bearing arms dot Com and I gotta tell you, I go to bearing arms dot Com a lot.

I'm really a big fan of that site, and they do a nice job and they really cover issues going on all around the country on Second Amendment issues.

But I was reading on that site and they give me the link to and an article on MSN, and MSN I thought it actually did a fairly decent job of covering it.

But they're talking about a a left wing and of course there's some description of them as adical left wing gun club that has been organized and I do not know, and it really wasn't covered in the article how long they've been around, But the article talks about the fact that they are now and this is this is a group called the John Brown gun Club.

And I remember John Brown.

And there are a couple of great movies out there about John Brown.

I just watched one recently that was fairly recently produced.

But he was an abolitionist, very ardently anti slavery, and I think based in Kansas, as if I recall, and and and was not shy about using violence to pursue his agenda.

And he was out to abolish slavery, and by all reports, a lot of reports of of this guy being a pretty violent guy.

And the John Brown gun Club I think chose its name in no small part specifically because and obviously I'm speculating here to some degree, because of John Brown's history and reputation for violence and in trying to recruit members on college campuses, and again they call themselves a gun club.

They were passing out a flyer and the article I read was talking about them recruiting people on Georgetown and Georgetown University's campus and in Washington, D C.

And they were handing out They're handing out flyers with a big headline on this flyer said hey fascist exclamation point, catch exclamation point, and then the subtitle on this thing, and then then there's there's a QR code, which I'm sure you can scan with your phone and go to a website for these folks.

The subtitle, though, is the only political group that celebrates when Nazis die.

So if the hay fascist catch phrase sounds familiar to you, it's because that's what the person who allegedly assassinated Charlie Kirk had inscribed on one of his shellcasings were still in his rifle that was discovered after the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

Hay fascist catch.

So let's review.

You've got a left wing organization that comes right out and says they're the only political group that celebrates when Nazis die, and using hay fascist catch which was specifically used by the alleged assassin who killed Charlie Kirk.

I think by in friends, I don't think it's a stretch to say, Okay, they're calling Charlie Kirk a Nazi, and I think it's it's further not a stretch to go the next step and say that people who admire follow Charlie Kirk, I'm sure would be labeled as fascists as well.

So the John Brown Gun Club passing up flyers to recruit student members of Hey fascist catch, saying that they celebrate when Nazis died?

Is us a declaration that they're a violent group?

And if it is a declaration that they're a violent group, how should those of us who advocate for Second Amendment rights?

Because again, this is a according to their name, a gun club, and they've posted pictures of themselves and I've not gone to their website, but as I understand it, you go to their website and they've got pictures themselves functioning essentially as a quote unquote militia.

So a left wing militia called the John Brown Gun Club.

How should we feel about that?

How should I feel about that?

Is what's been going through my mind.

As someone who celebrates Second Amendment rights practiced by Americans every day and advocates for that and defends that, fights for that very very hard, and I've been doing that for a very long time.

How do I feel about the John Brown Gun Club?

How do you feel about a quote unquote radical left wing organization called the John Brown Gun Club passing out flyers and say, hey, fascist catch, we're the only political group that celebrates when Nazis die.

Give us a call join the discussion here, We're going take a break at the bottom of the hour.

I'll go into that when we come back.

This says Guy Ralford on The Gun Guys Show on ninety three WIBC.

We show about gun rights, who, gun safety and responsible gun ownership.

This is the Gun Guy with guy'm Elford on ninety three WYPC and welcome back.

I'm Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WIBC, talking about the John Brown Gun Club, far left wing organization, declaring that they like to celebrate when Nazis die with a not so indirect reference to Charlie Kirk, and they're looking for members.

They're looking for members on college campuses.

And I asked myself, ques as soon as I saw this, And I hadn't heard anything about the John Brown Gun Club until I saw something maybe two three nights ago on the news about it.

And then I saw this article about how they're recruiting members with this flyer with hey fascist catch a reference to Charlie Kirk, assassin and what he had engraved on one of the cartridges found in his rifle allegedly, and I immediately started to ask myself, all right, Guy, how you feel about it this and I harkened back to not so long ago, we had a group they called themselves a NFAC and that stood for the Not Fing Around Coalition, with fing being the actual word you can't say on radio.

And so the NFAC led by a guy john Grandmaster J.

Johnson, which hearkens me back down to show my age.

You don't have to call me Ray.

You don't have to call me Ray J.

You don't have to call me Johnson here with that whole thing.

But anyway, Grandmaster J.

Johnson led the NFAC, and they were what they called themselves anyway, it was a black militia, and they had a march in Louisville, and it was a bit of a protest, and they had a whole big number of people, and they were dressed sort of in BDUs.

A lot of them, pretty much all of them that I saw, were carrying long guns, had side arms on their hip, a lot of them carrying ar style guns.

And they called themselves a militia.

They called themselves the NFAC, and they made the news not just because they had a I think a good sized march and protests in Louisville, but they also had what they were calling an accidental discharge.

If you listen to the gun Guy show, you'd call it a negligent discharge.

But some body dropped their gun apparently who was part of this militia.

Gun went off and three people got wounded.

But that isn't even really my point.

I mean, we could perhaps poke some fun at them for having members that don't know how to safely handle a firearm resulting in some of their own people getting shot, but that's a side issue.

The same thing happened.

People were posting about this and saying they felt very threatened and that you know, even I saw comments on social media saying, well, these people shouldn't be allowed to be armed like this, or march through downtown Louisville like this, or to quote unquote threatened people by carrying their long guns.

And my first reaction to all of that was, well, hell no.

I mean, how much of a hypocrite do I have to be if I say the Second Amendment only applies to me and those people that I agree with politically?

I can't say that on my worst day.

I haven't been that hypocritical.

I said, I absolutely support these people's ability.

They're right under the Second Amendment to protest, that's their First Amendment right to organize, to peaceably assemble, that's their First Amendment right to carry their guns while they're doing so.

I don't know that that's the best way to accomplish their political objectives, but that's not the point.

They have an absolute right to do it.

And I said it, and some people I think disagreed with me.

I didn't much care.

Well, these people are trying to intimidate law abiding Saysten, Well, that's what we get accused of all the time, just people who carry gons.

I'm not an open carry guy, but they absolutely fight for anybody's right to do it where it's legal, and it certainly is here in Indiana, including open carry in your long gun.

I question what it really accomplishes in terms of advocacy for Second Amendment rights, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna say someone doesn't have an absolute legal right to do it.

And I said the same thing about the NFAC Black militia that marks through Louisville in twenty twenty.

I haven't heard much about those people.

I don't know if they disbanded, they're still around, and people seem to be intimidated by the fact that they were a quote unquote militia.

Hell, let's think about that a minute.

How does the Second Amendment start?

Citizens soldiers are allowed to gather together in this country and to train and to arm themselves and to become proficient.

That's what being well regulated is within the meaning of the Second Amendment.

And that applies to the NFAC exactly as much as it applies to me or any organizations I'm a member of.

And to go to the next step, it applies absolutely without any question to the John Brown gun Club.

Now, these people quote unquote celebrate when Nazis die.

Is that a threat?

Not directly?

No, They and come out and say they're going to kill people they define as Nazis with an identification of who that would include you and I can all guess at that and probably come pretty close, particularly since they have the reference to the Charlie Klirk Kirk assassination with the Hey fascist catch reference.

But that doesn't go the next step to be an actionable I think, as a threat or to constitute what we would call in Indiana's intimidation, which is threatening someone with a particular objective.

You threaten someone, you threaten someone with a deadly weapon.

Our statue says, well, using or drawing a deadly weapon, that's a felony in Indiana.

Does that fall within that category?

No, I don't think so.

Celebrating when some person you don't like dies.

I mean, did I celebrate to some degree when Bin Lauden was killed?

Yeah, I think you could characterize that as a celebration.

I'm sure there are people in the Muslim world who would think that was terrible of me.

So that doesn't get you there.

So do I support the John Brown Gun Club in terms of their ability to arm themselves, to form themselves a militia, and to participate in the political process, including to gather, to have protests, to have marches, One hundred percent, no reservation, You bet it.

However, the existence of a group like the John Brown Gun Club also tells me that there are people on the other side of the aisle who are apparently, at least indirectly advocating violence.

I mean, it doesn't use a phrase Grandpa Ralford used to say all the time, it don't take no gypsy to read those tea leaves to call themselves the John Brown Gun Club, to call them themselves a far left wing militia and put out flyers as I've described, tells me their intent is to be a violent group, or maybe it is just to intimidate indirectly by making us think they're a violent group.

Either way, does that make me more and more likely?

And given the left of the violence here generally, and I'm not talking about violence that we can speculate about, like with the John Brown gun club, I'm talking about actual violence.

We've seen the assassination attempts on Charlie Kirk, the assassination attempts at the Senate softball or baseball practice that wounded, horribly wounded Steve Scalise.

I'm still surprised that he survived, and many thought he wouldn't during his long rehabilitation, and over and over and over again the violence we see from the left and then now with quote unquote militias are rising on that side of the aisle.

So that tell me they don't have the right to do what they're doing.

Well, you don't have the right to use violence.

But back to what we've seen so far anyway from this particular gun club, they absolutely have a right to do what they're doing.

But what's it tell me?

It tells me that the urgency associated with my own ability to protect my community, to protect my home, protect my family is absolutely as paramount as I've known it's been for a long time.

Circumstances are such I think more and more people are going to wake up to the idea that at some point you may have to defend yourself and have the capacity to defend yourself and to not rely on nine to one one.

Police are the first to tell you that they can't be everywhere, and their response time often is such that they're cleaning up after the fact.

What's that tell you?

It tells you the absolute essential nature, the absolute necessity of having capacity to defend yourself, your family, and your home when the need arises.

The fact there are groups like this rising up doesn't mean they're not entitled to do what they're doing currently.

It just means that at least indirect threat tells us the urgency associated with the capacity to defend yourself is has just taken another step I think toward being extremely urgent.

I'll tell you what, We're gonna have an incredibly short segment, if we have one at all.

We come back off gone past the three quarter hour, Let's take a break, come back for the Gun Guy Show here in just a bit.

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

Your Rights, Your Responsibilities, your Guns.

This is the Gun Guy with Guy Ralford on WYBC.

And welcome back.

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

After we break at the top of the hour, come back around shift gears a little bit talk about this shooting at an ice facility in Dallas, and it's really kind of amazing to me how when we see these radical left wing folks like that.

The person I just want to call him a kid.

He's in his twenty so clearly as an adult.

But the person who allegedly killed Charlie Kirk, I mean, after just a little bit of a delay and some initial confusion, it came out and it was I think confirmed from multiple different sources that this person had been radicalized and had extremely left wing leanings.

That was upset in particular at Charlie Kirk, not only for being a conservative generally, but for disputing the idea that a man can be a woman and a woman can be a man.

And that was primarily because this same person was in a romantic relationship with someone who was transitioning quote unquote, as I understand it, from a man to a woman.

And what did we see though, And this is one of the reasons the big kerfuffle.

There's a word to show my age a rose over Jimmy Fallon come out.

I say, oh, you know, obviously this is one of the Maga people.

He's and they're doing everything they can to deny that he was one of theirs.

The Ice shooting is another example of the ice shooting in Dallas of how the Left tries to spin these things.

And that's what we'll talk about when we come back.

Right now, we're breaking at the top of the hour.

We'll be right back.

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

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.

Bom, Guy Ralphord on three WYBC.

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

So, the Dallas Ice shooting, that is an attack on an ICE facility by someone who clearly was targeting ICE agents, who had anti Ice literally anti Ice engraved on at least one of his cartridges, and opened fire on an ICE facility where they were holding detainees, by the way, and in fact the people who got shot were actually detainees and not ICE agents.

And so of course immediately the leftist press came out and reported this as clearly being another Mega or another conservative, another person who somehow hated immigrants in this country.

I was attacking the immigrants by shooting at them at an ICE facility.

And just like in the Charlie Kirk shooting Charlie Kirk murder, the immediate reports that came out were verified established to be completely false and inaccurate and misleading, and probably intentionally so.

Where it came out, the Guy had a history and documented history of being upset about ICE, set about immigration's customs enforcement, and about the fact that ICE was engaged as President Trump promised, they would be engaging the process of deporting, of finding, detaining, and then deporting illegal aliens in this country, and he was upset about that.

That's why he opened fire.

He was clearly trying to kill ICE agents.

He reportedly had a fairly crappy rifle and was a fairly crappy shot and shot the wrong people.

He's upset on behalf of illegal immigrants in this country.

So what does he do.

He goes and shoots and kills.

I think two died in that shooting attack.

Others wounded the very people he was supposedly upset on behalf of.

So A he's an idiot.

B he's allows he shot.

But watching the left spin this and watching the media spin this.

I mean, if it wasn't completely frustrating, it would be funny.

And what I actually did break out laughing about is somebody sent me a link to an article in the New York Post and listen, I should not expect anything different from the New York Post, but the headline says anti ICE shooter.

At least they called him anti ICE, so he's they're admitting here the guy was actually targeting ICE agents and not actually illegal aliens being detained, but shooter, and then they name him.

I don't like to name these people.

They're after notoriety, They're after fame, even in death.

I'll give that to him.

But antish ice shooter blank and this is the best part used Nazi battle rifle in deadly Dallas attack, it says colon experts.

So Nazi battle rifle man.

The left just cannot get away from the word, not can they.

I mean, every time you turn around, I mean hell on social media.

Just because I advocate for Second Amendment rights, and probably because I'm a white middle aged man, well, I can't really claim middle age anymore.

I'm on past middle age now.

As I told my buddy Checka the other day over lunch, I said, I can't call myself middle age.

I'm I'm in the third quarter, maybe approaching the fourth, so halftime's over.

But maybe just because of my demographic however you want to assess it, I get called a Nazi.

But man, they love that term Nazi battle rifle.

So is that another attempt that we keep saying to spin this, say this guy had some kind of motivation or association or reference point with the quote unquote Nazis because he was using a Nazi battle rifle.

And by the way, is that an accurate description of this rifle, and what the hell are they talking about?

And this is where I started chuckle, because reportedly what the guy had and this was a rifle he just obtained in August an a rifle that was sufficiently old being called an antique.

But it was an eight millimeter Mauser.

And he may recall that the murderer of Charlie Kirk used a thirty to six Mauser.

What's the connection, Well, the same manufacturers, manufacturer obviously been around for a very long time.

Is it an accurate description to call it a Nazi battle rifle?

And again we can only speculate us what the motivation of the Washington Post was and calling it that to begin with, I think they're clearly trying to point more figures to say, oh, this guy must have had right leanings, he had some love affair with a Nazi battle rifle.

He must be a Nazi, which, by inference in their minds, associates him with the right.

Those of us firmly entressed on the right have to find that a bit humorous, but as an accurate description, Look that eight millimeter Mauser and again another bold action rifle as was used, different caliber, same manufacture, and apparently the Maus of thirty odd six used in Utah by the murder of Charlie Kirk was I think quite a bit newer than what they're saying this guy had in Dallas.

But the eight milimeter Mauser Guess was developed in Germany in the late eighteen hundreds, like eighteen ninety something.

It was a primary infantry rifle during World War One, carried by the Germans.

And it's been a while since I took European history, and I have not studied European history like I have American history.

But I'm pretty sure that Nazis didn't come around until I say, the nineteen thirties, and they weren't.

They weren't around for World War One when the mals of eight millimeter of this particular vintage were being carried by German soldiers.

Now did some German soldiers also carry the mals of eight millimeter in World War Two?

Yes?

Were some of those German soldiers Nazis?

I'm sure they were.

So is there some hint of accuracy about that description?

I suppose you could cling to that if you were so inclined.

But the rifle was developed much earlier than that.

Was used much before.

That was used extensively by German troops in World War One.

And do I think that this guy went out and chose this particular rifle because he went Oh yes, as as a person leaning toward Nazi principles.

It's just it's practically romantic to select a Nazi battle rifle to do my evil deed that I'm planning.

Absolutely not, that's a joke.

I think he's reportedly twenty nine years old.

I have no idea what his financial condition was.

I can only guess, but if he's buying what's essentially an antique eight millimeter MOUs or Bold Action, he wasn't spending a lot of money.

And I will offer a little bit of informed speculation that he's probably a broke ass kid twenty nine and that's what he could afford.

Not because it had some romantic association with Nazis, and it assuming that was his motivation to begin with, why on earth would he have a plan to then kill Ice agents in Dallas when it's Ice agents that are being called Nazis.

Hell was it?

Gavin Newsom, governor of California, was talking about them being the Gestapo.

Those are Nazis.

That's the association the Left keeps trying to spend.

That's the association they keep trying to establish that they want all of us out there to believe.

Of course it's nonsense.

So to try to create some association between this idiot in Dallas who not only is not particularly smart but a really lousy shot, that's he chose his Nazi battle.

Sorry, no, that shall not pass.

I'll tell you what were the quarter I will take a break, well, shift gears again and take care of calls.

We had a couple of people who have called in and then dropped off for whatever reason, probably because I was in mid rant.

Free to join the discussion, give us a call.

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

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

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

Welcome back.

I'm Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy Show on ninety three Wibc're still not going to eat callers time.

If you want to join the discussion, we can get your right on the air.

Give us a call.

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

So these last two very high profile shooters, the I shooting.

By the way, some of my buddies in the chat on YouTube are telling me that the particular mouser that was used in the Dallas eye shooting actually came from Chile and and uh and also the Mauser licensed out the design of this eight millimeter Bold Action into a lot of different countries that are produced in a lot of different countries, and somebody had the very astute point that it's unlikely to be a Nazi battle rifle if it came from Chile.

I think that's a fair point.

And so you would think again looking at these last two shootings, the just.

Horrible, horrible, horrible.

Assassination of Charlie Kirk, which I think a lot of us are going to take a long time to get over, and then the shooting at the ice facility in Dallas.

These were both done with yeah, the Mauser quote unquote, but both both done with Bold Action rifles.

And and I'm sure on one hand, the anti gun crowd out there, Liberals are out there, I mean, you know, they light up whenever they have the opportunity to accuse the so called assault weapon the weapons of war quote unquote, which is obviously an inaccurate description, but what they often quality, they often ascribe to ar fifteen of them, like semi automatic rifles, the most common rifles an American.

Neither one of these shootings were committed with a quote unquote asault rifle.

And a lot of times when we see shooting, we'll see shootings with handguns, we'll see shootings with shotguns, and the left just sort of disappears about those because they don't have the steady drum beat that they love to use to quote Rama Manuel, never letting a good tragedy go to waste of going after the most common rifles in America, the so called assault rifles again, which they call weapons of war.

Well now they're calling a bolt action Mauser a Nazi battle rifle, so they're not wandering too far from that theme.

But so you would think that the gun control screams wouldn't be present, wouldn't have been generated from these last two shootings, but oh no, you would be wrong.

Son of minority leader Chuck Schumer, was asked about the Ice shooting and where did he go.

This was on MSNBC's Mourning Joe, and I can never look at, listen to, or see Mourning Joe without laughing, usually out loud, and thinking about his description.

Just I mean, days before then, President Biden participated in the debate with Donald Trump and the world got to see the extent of his mental degradation.

I mean, how deep into dementia he had sunk at that moment, and the world got to see it, and it was no longer deniable.

But Morning Joe on msn NBC had come out and said, this version of Joe Biden is as sharp, is as good.

It's the best he's ever been.

His staff can't keep up with him.

He runs circles around his staff.

He's the most hard work, He's the brightest, most astute he's ever been.

Forgive me, I have to go on that rant every time I think about Mourning Joe and how he can show his face on television after being embarrassed over that comment.

I'm not quite sure.

But Chuck Schumer was being asked by Mourning Joe about the Ice shooting in particular, and where did Chuck Schumer go?

He goes, we need better laws on guns, first place he goes gun control.

We need better laws on guns.

So he get these most recent shootings.

He's got two shootings committed with bold action rifles.

We need better laws on guns.

I mean, we got something done a few years ago.

He's talking about this so called Safer Communities Act.

I mean, we got something done a few years ago, but it's just rampant and we have to do more.

So he's talking about passing laws.

So how many generations, decades have we heard from the left, the gun control proponents on the left, how many how many years have we heard no one wants to want No one wants to take your hunting rifle, right that that that that dear rifle that you have, that rifle you use to put food on the table.

No one's going to take your hunting rifle away from you.

I mean, we've heard no one wants to take your guns at all.

And of course that's a lie.

And in fact, we saw calls for confiscation.

We saw presidential candidates come right out and say, hell, yes, we're going to take her AR fifteen.

Hell yes, we're going to take her AK forty seven.

So we know confiscation is part of the plan.

But as part of that, even those that have admitted they want to come take your semi automatic rifle with a detachable magazine, at least they've said no one at least wants to take your hunting rifle.

Now, I always chuckle about that because as part of that, they say, and by the way, you can't hunt with an AR.

Fifteen has no use for hunting, therefore you don't need one.

Where is the reference to hunting in the Second Amendment talking about well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state.

That's the preamble.

What's important is are the arms that I have a right to keep in bear that are necessary for the security of a free state.

What the hell does that have to do with hunting?

People say, well, that doesn't totally.

And by the way, do people hunt with ars, Absolutely, one hundred percent they do.

Now, they're obviously cartridge restrictions on what you can use to hunt different game, and some of the most common ars are in calibers that are not necessarily legal for hunting certain things.

But that's not because they're quote unquote too powerful, like always gets stated about them.

It's just the opposite, not powerful enough, not a big enough cartridge moving fast enough to guarantee an ethical kill of an animal like a deer.

But my point in all of this is they've said, well, no one wants to take your hunting room, and I've never believed that when I heard it.

I think there are people out there that would take every gun in America if they could.

Of course, that's every gun they can get a hold of, which means they're going to go to law abiding people and take their guns.

And of course the criminals are not going to relinquish theirs, which leaves you only one element of society that's armed.

But that's still the plan.

And well, I think is great evidence of that.

And it may be just that Chuck Schumer is an idiot and it didn't even know what kind of rifles he's talking about.

But after two different shootings with bold action rifles, you got Chuck Schumer calling for more gun control.

Well, that's so called a solivan ban is irrelevant to those two shootings because they saw weapon wasn't used neither one.

And then you've got an article like the Trace.

If you know the Trace, they're about as leftist as they come.

But they actually had an article here just recently about the dangers of these evil bold action rifles that are the weapons of choice for quote unquote long range sniper attacks.

And what we now need to be primarily concerned about as far as a danger to the American public is long range sniper attacks with bold action rifles.

What's that tell you?

What's the point?

What direction are they going?

Here?

They're laying a foundation, yes, to come after your hunting rifle.

And listen, if I want to take a long distance shot, I mean a very long distance shot.

There are all people out there, all kinds of people out there.

People tell you they qualified with their with their their M one with iron sights at five hundred yards, and and and and and I absolutely believe them when they tell me.

And people that you know tell me what they qualified.

They qualify with their M sixteen or their M four And they were shooting long distances with iron sights.

And it's with semi automatic rifle.

Are there semi automatic sniper rifles?

So absolutely there are used by the military.

But you asked me what I want to use if I want to take a really long distance shot.

Say I want to take a five hundred yard shot, and I want to have some confidence and I'm going to hit that shot rifle that I own?

Am I going to take for that Am I going to use for that shot?

I'm gonna use my Bold Action three hundred win MAAT And so long range shots, yes, are going to be used, are going to be taken.

And a lot of people are going to select a bold action rifle.

Why are they used some prevalent in hunting, Well, there are round restrictions in most states.

A lot of times you're only taking one, maybe two shots a shot and a follow up, and yeah, a lot of times shots are taken at distance.

Now people again will restrict themselves on distance because they want to make sure they can make an ethical kill as part of a hunt.

And a lot of people I know, and I'm not a big deer hunter, people I know saw I won't take a shot over two hundred yards or I won't take a shot over one hundred and fifty.

But what guns are they using?

Not always a lot of them are using bold action rifles.

Why, by the way, why is a bold action rifle inherently more accurate than a semi automatic?

Well, you can't completely compare genres and compare all rifles are all bold action rifles more accurate than all semi automatic absolutely, not not even close, but generically speak, there are traits about the bold action rifle that makes it more accurate the semi automatic.

There are fewer moving pieces at the time the gun is cycling or the time the gun is firing, there are less things going on in a bold action rifle and through less moving parts, less movement of the gun, and the way that a lot of bold actions are built, they're built specifically for long distance shooting.

So is there a threat a continuing threat of more quote unquote to use the language of the trace, Are there dangers out there of long range sniper attacks using bold action rifles?

Well, I suppose to the extent that we've now seen two high profile shootings of exactly that nature, they're going to be more wackos decide that's what they want to do as well.

What does that tell us about the need to find these people, to chase them down, to identify them, to get them off the streets before they have an opportunity to do these things.

But if you think you're going to pass a law that's going to address this, as Chuck Schumer was clearly suggesting you are talking about taking America's hunting rifles away from them.

That's exactly what you're talking about.

And if there's an excuse to do it, and the favorite excuse to the left is to point to any tragedy and say, aha, that's exactly the reason we need to go in that direction, then you're going to see exactly what's unfolding right now.

People waving their hands in the air talking about the dangers of these kinds of attacks, and then politicians saying, well, there's got to be something to do.

Do I see that happening in my lifetime.

Absolutely not, but don't think it's not on their agenda, which is exactly the point.

And with that we're a little pass the botom of the arrows.

Take a break.

We'll be right back, and if we have any go to the phone lines and shift gears a little bit.

Here.

On The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WYBC.

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

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

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

I was reading about a shooting in penn station train station in New York City.

It just happened this last week, and a guy there in the train station tried to rob to undercover police officers, at least there were police officers in playing clothes, and one of the officers drew his gun and shot the back guy apparently just hit him in the arm.

Guy's gonna be okay, but good guys won.

Robert lost, And you say, okay, that's all good news.

But you know, doing what I do for a living and looking at things from a legal perspective, it really sort of took me back through what we've seen in New York and in particular what we've seen from New York and other places like Hawaii and California, and their response to the Supreme Court's decision from here a couple of years ago in the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association versus Bruin case, and if you don't recall that case, what that case came out and said that was dealing with the fact that in New York City there were very severe restrictions on your ability to get a carry license that would allow you to carry a hand gun outside the home, and virtually nobody unless you were politically connected got a license, and the rank and file New York citizen simply couldn't carry outside the home.

And so the Supreme Court, and ruling on that case, said, listen, carrying a handgun outside the home is a right protected by the Second Amendment.

And having this licensing system that involves some government official having the discretion to decide who had a sufficient need quote unquote to carry a handgun in public.

And basically in New York it was you had to have some active, current threat against you, just having a job that puts you in harm's way, or carrying large amounts of cash or jewelry like some jewelry store owners wanted to get a license.

Couldn't living in a high crime area.

None of that was good enough.

You had to have some current active threat.

So and so is currently trying to kill me.

Here's documentation of it.

I mean, that's about how bad it was.

As far as the requirement to have a sufficient need to get a license in New York, Supreme Court said that's unconstitutional.

You have to have a shall issue system, meaning anybody who's eligible to get a license without the discretion of some bureaucrat scratching his chin, saying, you have a need, but you don't.

Can't be based on need, that be based on legal eligibility, like the system we have here in Indiana when we had a license requirement, still have a license and the requirements the criteria for getting your license or exactly what they've always been, or at least for a long long time.

But a shall issue system as opposed to a may issue system.

And so a lot of us looked at this.

And by the way, they also redefined the test.

And this is what's made huge progress for Second Amendment rights.

And they redefine the test.

I said, no, it's text, history, and tradition.

It's not some balancing of a of a compelling governmental interest in whatever it might be balanced to get the against the extent of infringement of a constitutional right.

That balancing test always irritated the hell out of me.

Well, a little bit of infringement is okay as long as there's a compelling government interest that we're trying to protect or that the law is trying to advance.

No, shall not be infringed, means shall not be infringed, And whatever level of infringement you think is okay.

Is not okay because it's still infringement.

And so we got away from this balancing test and the Brewin decision, but also through the shall issue requirement and the recognition that carrying a handgun outside the home is a fundamental right protected by the Second Amendment.

A lot of us celebrated the Brewin decision enthusiastically.

This is really changes the landscape well New York and several other states, as I mentioned, seeing what they're now faced with of well, gosh, we have to issue licenses, we have to have a shall issue system.

People are going to carry guns more than they could before.

What can we possibly do to continue infringing on the citizens' rights in New York?

I mean, that's literally the thought process.

And they took one phrase out of the bruined decision, which is, yes, it's a fundamental right to carry a handgun outside the home.

However, they recognize that a government may want to still restrict guns from being carried in certain sensitive places like schools, and governments like the government in New York, in Hawaii and California and others.

It's aha, We'll declare every damn place a sensitive location where we can still regulate firearms, and that's exactly what they sought to do.

Basically, it was anywhere in public I mean it's not quite that bad, but getting pretty close.

One of the places they declared as a sensitive area was public transportation in New York City, and that would include Penn Station where they're shooting occurred.

Why do you suppose there were two bad guys brazen enough to walk up to just two men standing around on a platform in the train station and try to rob them at gunpoint because they know it's a prohibited place.

They know it's a quote unquote gun free zone.

And I've been saying for a lot of years, there does such thing as a gun free zone.

It's a fallacy.

It doesn't exist.

There's no such thing as a gun free zone.

Doesn't exist.

Why do I say that?

Or there are places where only the good guys have guns, like after the securiarity of the airport, Why because there were people with guns and metal detectors and the wherewithal to take your gun away from you.

If you try to take your gun into a place where it's not allowed prisons, after you get through the gate, you get through security, that's a gun free zone.

But it's not without guns.

Are there guards with guns, Yes, only the good guys have guns.

Then there are places that are not restricted, so essentially anybody can have a gun there.

Maybe not legally as far as bad guys who cannot legally possess firearms, but in terms of the capacity to have guns there, anybody can have a gun there out on the street in public.

Here in Indiana, bad guys have guns.

Good guys have guns, they're illegally able to do so.

And then there are places where only bad guys have guns.

At least there are no good guys that have guns there unless they're willing to break the law.

So declaring public transportation areas including Penn Station in New York is a gun free zone is not declaring it a gun fore zone at all, because it doesn't exist.

It's a fallacy.

It's declaring that we will only allow bad guys to have guns here, or at least we acknowledge that only bad guys will have guns, because the good people are going to follow the law and not have guns.

And that's exactly why you got two guys robbing two adult men standing on a platform in Penn Station in New York.

And by the way, that that prohibition about public transportation went up to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals here just recently, and Second Circuit Court of Appeals being the Second Circuit, an incredibly liberal circuit, said, oh no, that's fine.

Where he's very crowded areas, there's a certain sense, since there's certainly sensitive areas where it makes perfect sense to restrict guns there.

That's consistent with text, history and tradition of the Second Amendment.

And New York can have this law if at once.

And so then what do you see at Penn Station?

Exactly what everybody would predict.

Gun free zones don't exist.

Are places where only good guys have guns.

There are places where both good and bad people have guns, and there are people there are places where only bad guys have guns.

That's New York's Penn Station.

Congratulations New York, brilliant.

And with that, I'll tell you a little past three quarter hours, take a break there, we'll come back and we'll wrap up this edition of the Gun Guy Show here on ninety three WYBC.

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

And welcome back.

Got a bit of a short segment here to wrap up this edition of The Gun Guy Show.

But you know this shooting in New York, and by the way, I went back and looked at the article, it was it was actually a female officer that shot this bad guy there as she was waiting with a fellow officer there on the platform in Penn Station.

Doesn't change any of my points about that, but I wanted to be accurate about that.

I had read it first time, just said two officers, and I incorrectly assumed they were both guys.

But there you go.

And if I'm a woman standing around in Penn Station in New York, you think I don't want to be armed one hundred percent, I do, but New York law prohibits me from doing that.

And I'll leave you with this.

This is one of those areas the Supreme Court just really has to take up.

Supreme Court needs to take those are called a slip and ban cases, And in fact, we had Justice Kavanaugh came out and said, we really need to take one of these here soon.

They take that.

They need to take the age restrictions, the high capacity magazine case, and the sensitive cases sensitive places cases.

They absolutely need to take those as well a lot of people are being deprived of their constitutional freedoms and the Supreme Court needs to step in.

Now.

Well, that's this week's edition of the show.

Remember always shoot straight and always be safe.

This is Guy Ralford on ninety three e WYBC.