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 A boom boom boom.

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

Guy Ralphord on ninety three WYBC.

Yeah, good afternoon, and welcome to the Gun Guy Show here on ninety three WIBC.

For thrill that you're with us.

A lot to get into as we always have.

Hope you're enjoying this afternoon.

Turned out to be a beautiful day.

Hope you got to get out and bust some primers and enjoy your Second Amendment rights on this gorgeous day, really pretty day.

I know they're talking about rain a little later.

We'll see whether that unfolds or not.

I was reading about and in fact, a number of people sent me links to an article about a self defense shooting that I think everyone, every rational person who reads about this self defense shooting here in Indianapolis, would be cheering on the woman who shot a rapist immediately after he sexually assaulted her in her home on Indie's northeast side.

And this just happened this week.

The article that I read about it just posted on the seventeenth, so just a couple of days ago.

But the story as reported by Fox fifty nine.

And I posted a link to this on my Twitter at Guy Ralford.

If you go there on Twitter or x give me a follow while you're there if you don't mind.

But interesting story, and I wanted to talk about it because it raises I think some interesting points about Indiana self defense law and listen, like any point of law, especially one that's widely discussed on the internet or otherwise, there's a lot of misinformation out there, a lot of confusion about what Indiana's law says and doesn't say, and even terminology people use, how people use terms like castle doctrine and stand your ground law and whatnot.

Evidences in my mind anyway, because I feel these calls, I have these discussions answer questions when I'm teaching my gun law class that I talk about here often on the show.

A lot of information there that comes as a surprise to people who had a completely different understanding or interpretation of the law.

But this case again just unfolded this week.

Indies's northeast side over on meadow Lark Drive, not too far from Speedway, and the victim reported the police that a man walked into her home, pointed a gun at her, and raped her there in her home, even while recording the sexual assault on his phone.

Now, is there a rational person on earth?

Well, rational being the key descriptor, but is there a rational person on earth who in that after that description, I should say, wouldn't root for this guy to get shot for the woman to defend herself righteously and legally to shoot this guy after such a horrific crime unfolded right there in her home.

And make no mistake, I'm rooting for the victim in this situation one thousand percent and then some.

But the way this was reported, and this is just an issue of Indiana law that I wanted to address.

And again, make no mistake, nothing I say on this show should be interpreted as me doing anything other than rooting for this young lady and cheering her on for her willingness to shoot and shoot at a rapist who just committed that horrible crime right there in her home.

It's also, though, an educational opportunity to just talk about how Indiana law works because the way it's being reported.

Again, this is by Fox fifty nine, and you can read the article go to my Twitter at Guy Ralford.

It says, after the suspect began to leave, the woman grabbed her own gun and began shooting at her attacker.

The back window of a blue toy Yota parked on an adjacent street was shattered by that gunfire.

So that's a little bit vague.

In fact, it's quite a bit vague.

After the suspect began to my first question and looking at this legally, and again I'm cheering her on one thousand percent.

There's no indication in this article anyway, and this happened here in Mary County.

There's no indication that a woman's you know, has any potential of being prosecuted herself, and I think it would be a huge mistake to do so.

But I also want to use this as an opportunity to talk a little bit about what the law says after he began to leave.

First question that I had was was he still in her home, still within the four corners or however many corners of her home when she grabbed her gun and began shooting.

That's an important question because it means if he's in her home, the castle doctrine is still implicated.

What's the castle doctrine?

And here's how this works.

If you want to read the whole Indiana Self Defense Statute, easy to do.

Just Google and they'll give you the statute numbers thirty five dash forty one dash three dash two.

Just google it and the first thing will come up will be the results of that mathematical formula thirty five minus forty one, et cetera.

The second thing that will come up on your Google will be the Indiana Statute, and you can read the whole thing.

And the way it works.

It starts off with a bit of a preamble and then it's divided up into sub sections and it's all part of one statute thirty five dash forty one desk three dash two, but it has different sections starting with section A, Section B, et cetera.

And those different subsections deal with different scenarios and what the law is regarding the use of force, the legal and justified use of force under different situations, in different situations, under different scenarios.

One, it starts off with what I call the general Self Defense Statue that applies to you no matter where you are out in public, applies in your home as well.

That's the general self defense statue talks about when you can use force and self defense when you can use deadly force.

And then the section after that is what we call the castle doctrine, which deals it's broader than this, but it deals with a specific situation of the use of force and self defense in your home.

That's why we call it the castle doctrine.

Your ability to defend your castle, your home.

And what it says is that you are legally justified in using force, including deadly force.

It says reasonable force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe that that force.

And again we're talking about deadly force here.

Anytime you shoot a gun at someone, it's deadly force.

Hell, we have an Indiana case from the Indiana Court of Appeals.

It says, simply pointing a loaded gun at someone creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury.

And you know what, creating a substantial risk of serious bodily injury is the definition of deadly force.

So if you shoot a gun at someone, even if you miss them, you ought to consider that to be deadly forced, and that's going to be the way that plays out legally in just about every circumstance.

But this particular subsection of the self Defense Statute in Indiana deals with the use of force in your home, and it says you can use reasonable force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe that that force deadly force is necessary.

Necessary is an important word to prevent or terminate an unlawful attack on or entry into your dwelling.

Prevent or terminate two very important words.

So somebody's on your front porch, breaks your front window and has one foot through your front window.

They're not in your home yet, and you hear this idiotic uh general consensus out there has been running around for generations.

If you shoot somebody on the front porch, drag them inside.

How many times you heard that?

It's completely idiotic.

And I always mention this in my gun law class.

That's completely idiotic because a like, the forensic guys aren't gonna figure that out when the CSI crew shows up, they're gonna figure out that the person was shot on the front porch and got drug inside.

But secondly, it's completely unnecessary from a legal perspective, because you can prevent an unlawful entry into your home you're dwelling, and you can do so with deadly force, it says right in Stashing, to prevent or terminate an unlawful attack on or entry into your dwelling.

Now it goes on and it's brought her from than that, but that's where it starts.

So if this guy that we're talking about, the rapist, I should say accused rapists at this point, was identified in the Fox fifty nine article as Trayvon Haynes, twenty three years old, if he was in her home illegally said he walked into her home, pointed a gun at her and raped her.

Walked into her home, suggests to me that he was not invited.

He was not there legally.

If he was not there legally, that's an unlawful entry into her home.

If he's already in the home, can she terminate his unlawful entry into her home with deadly force?

Yes, to the extent that's necessary, quote unquote, because keep in mind, and again I'm dealing I'm dealing with his whole scenario, and I'm addressing it.

From the perspective of the Fox fifty nine article.

As reported in that particular article.

I said, after he began to leave, the woman grabbed her own gun and began shooting at her attacker.

And again I'm cheering her on one thousand percent, Make no mistake.

Is it relevant that he began to leave?

Is it relevant that he was still in the house.

Is it relevant to the issue of whether her use a force was in fact necessary quote unquote to terminate his unlawful entry.

Now, then it says the back window of a blue Teota, as I mentioned a bit of go parked on an adjacent street, was shattered by that gunfire.

Does that suggest he was outside her home and leaving the premises?

I don't want to speculate.

I do not know.

I am not guessing on that issue whatsoever.

And a shot could have absolutely gone through a window, through a wall.

Most construction materials used in a lot of homes are not particularly bulletproof, and bullets can pass through drywall, bullets can pass through aluminum siding, brick and whatnot.

Not so much.

But through a window, sure, through an open door, sure, And I do not know.

I do not know how this car on an adjacent street had a window shattered.

That raises a question in my mind is whether he whether he was inside, that is, the rapist, the alleged rapist was inside or outside the home.

Why is all that relevant?

That's what I'll get into as well as take your calls.

You have questions about the use of force and self defense, including deadly force in your home or otherwise, give us a call.

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

This is Guy Relford on The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WYBC, second.

To nine on this second and then this is the Gun Guy with Guy Ralford on ninety three WYBZ.

And welcome back.

I'm Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WIBC talking about a self defense case happened on the north northeast side of Indy, not too far from where I am right now.

And listen, does a rapist deserve to get shot?

One thousand percent?

You bet?

You know what, more rapists got shot, we'd have fewer rapists, which means we'd have fewer rapes.

And I'm all for that.

There's a couple of points though about Indian a self defense law that I think I can use this incident for in terms of a little bit of education about how the law really works.

And here's a fundamental concept.

And when I cover this in the in my gun law class, I always get some looks.

I can tell people aren't thrilled about this aspect of the law, and I completely understand why because it doesn't feel very good.

But there's a key concept to just get your head wrapped around, and that is that Indiana has a defense statue, is self defense statue where typically you have to be preventing something bad from happening.

You have to be preventing serious bodily injured to you, you are another person.

That's a rule that applies anywhere you are inside your home, outside your home, in public.

You have to be preventing the commission of a forciable family.

You're preventing something bad from happening.

You're defending right.

But we do not have in Indiana.

And what most states in fact do not have, if not all, is a payback statue that justifies the use of force or self defense as payback.

And again, let me emphasize this because I don't want to get emails or calls from people who are confused about what my message is here, I'm rooting for this lady who is the victim of a horrible crime.

If this is accurate reporting, and if what she reported the police is true, and I have no reason to think it's not, then she's a victim of a horrific crime and the guy who attacked her deserved to get shot at thousand percent.

And I'm on her side, and I'm rooting for her as emphatically as I can possibly make that point.

But as if things unfolded a little differently, this is an important thing for people to know, particularly people who own and carry guns or have guns in their home, and that is, we do not have a payback statue that allows to justifiably use force or deadly force as payback.

If the threat is over, or if it's no longer a quote unquote necessary to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry into our homes, then the justification for the use of force, including deadly force, no longer exists.

Now this guy is still in her home, hey, then she, in my mind, reasonably believe, based on the facts presented in the article I've read, now I've read more than one had a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary to terminate his unlawful entry because he hadn't left yet.

What if he ran out the door when he was running down the driveway and listen, I don't know whether this was a home or an apartment, or what the physical infrastructure look like, but let's just say hypothetically, and again, I don't want anybody think I'm rooting against this young lady.

Let's say, in a different scenario, someone breaks into your home, but now they've left your home and they're running down the driveway and running away from you.

Are you still justified and using force against them?

Answer is no, because it's no longer necessary to terminate their unlawful entry into your home.

They've already terminated their unlawful entry.

They're leaving.

What if they're still in your home but they're running toward the front door.

Well, that's where the word necessary comes into play.

Is it necessary to use force, including deadly force, to terminate an unlawful entry into your home if they're terminating the unlawful entry all by themselves a long time ago, what I used to do all the time.

This is years and years ago, and I haven't done this in a long time.

It'd be fun to start doing this again.

Is I used to post scenarios on Ingo Indiana gun owners.

It's great for him.

It's it's really well run.

I know some of the moderators on there, and there's a lot of good information.

Like any online forum.

Yes, you can occasionally run across some knuckleheads, but it's the Internet.

You're not ever going to get away from that.

And for the most part, I think it's really well moderated, and there are some great threads on there.

I think very educational.

And there's a whole big, long thread, by the way, on legislating the Second Amendment that you really ought to keep track of and keep an eye on during the legislative session, whether that's Congress, which goes much longer than Indiana's session, that that that starts January one every year and runs through the spring.

And it's great idea to keep an eye on.

But I spoke scenarios on there all the time, and and I usually would caption them, are you going to jail?

And one that raises the same issue I'm discussing here, given the situation in Speedway one.

One scenario I posted a little bit different.

I said, you're you're at home.

You're you're sleeping next to your wife in your home, and two bad guys break into your home.

There's no question.

It's an unlawful entry into your home.

And they they they have a to do list, which is to murder you, murder your family, and steal all your stuff.

So these are bad guys that are criminals.

They're armed.

By the way, is it necessary if somebody breaks into your home?

Should Is it necessary for them to be armed or a physical threat to you or someone else in your home for you to be able to use force to terminate their unlawful entry.

No, that's not part of the statue.

You don't need to fear getting injured in your home.

You simply have to believe it's necessary to terminate their unlawful entry.

There's no requirement, it's part of the statue.

Did there be armed that you fear death or anything like that.

But these guys are armed.

One of them's got a an ak, one of them's got a sowd off shotgun.

Everything's loaded, and they come back into your bedroom with every intention of killing you and killing your wife.

But as they walk through the door, your trusty labrador next to the bed barks.

You pick up your nineteen eleven forty five off the nightstand and shoot the first guy that came through the door.

He folds like a cheap soup, goes down.

Second guy drops his gun, screams like a scalded bobcat, and goes running for the still open front door.

You round the hallway corner chasing after him.

And then when he's got one foot out the door, still screaming out of fear, having seen his compadre, his fellow criminal get shot, you shoot him in the back of the head.

He's still in your home.

He's just got one foot through the still open front door as he's leaving.

And what I was doing when I posted that scenario and end goes, this is a long time ago.

You'd probably find it.

You go on there he posts, are you going to jail?

But I posted several like that, with involving different scenarios, and I would What I was usually doing is I was trying to invite somewhat wrong answers so that I could hopefully correct some misimpressions that I perceived existed about Indiana law.

Because what a lot of people have said for a lot of years, go out there and conventional wisdom which often may be conventional but not necessarily wise out there as well.

If they're in your home, you can shoot them.

If they're in your home.

If they're in your home, you can shoot them.

Now, for the most part, that's true.

That's why I say it's it's very relevant whether this guy, the alleged rapist, was still in this young lady's house in Speedway when she picked up a gun and started shooting at him.

But I was highlighting the use of the word necessary in the Indiana Self Defense Statute because it's not just in the castle doctrine portion that talks about your dwelling, but it's also in the general self Defense Statute talks about the ability to use force, including deadly forced, to prevent serious bodily injury to you or a third person.

You have to reasonably believe that's necessary.

And that's really my only point in bringing this up.

You have to prevent, or you have to reasonably believe that you're preventing or terminating an unlawful entry into your home if the castle doctrine apply, and the word necessary is an important requirement in that context.

And listen, do I think even in Marion County.

Do I think a young lady who just experienced a rape, who just suffered through a rape, was a victim of a rape, who defends herself against a rapist.

Do I think there's a reasonable likelihood that she can or will or should get prosecuted?

Absolutely, one hundred percent.

Not.

But I want folks to know and understand that the word necessary is in the statute, and and payback And I'm not accusing her of this.

I'm not saying it applies.

Payback is not part of the of the scenarios that are justified under an Indiana law.

Now, I'm going to go back and talk about the word necessary.

It's in the statute.

That is, you have to reasonably if it's necessary to prevent her terminated a unlawful entry into your dwelling under the castle doctrine, or deadly for is necessary to prevent serious bodile of the injury to you or a third person, or the commission of a forcible felony.

That's what's in the general self defense Statute.

I'm going to talk about that word, and that word being in most states self defense law traditionally under the common laws.

You know the cases that grew up, and then in the codified statutes that were passed across the country.

Why the word necessary that exists in most states self defense laws, whatever form they take, is exactly why we have a castle, excuse me, a stand your ground provision in our self defense law, and why so many other states have a stand your ground provision in their self defense law.

Of people say, oh, well, we have a standard ground law.

Well, we have a self defense law, and in virtually every subsection of that law that talks about the use of force, and including the use of deadly force, there's a standard ground provision.

And the reason it's there is because of some of how some courts have applied the word necessary that's in a self defense statute.

Are you confused?

You don't see where I'm going?

I completely understand.

I will parse it all out and explain it completely when we come back, as well as go to the phone lines.

We've had a couple of people on hold here for a while.

We'll go to the phone lines and can you continue the discussion of the use of force and self defense?

Again highlighted by this this horrible crime, a rape that apparently happened on the northeast side of India and a lady defending herself and a lot of us are cheering her on in that regard, but using that as an opportunity for a little bit of education on India and a self defense law.

That's what we're talking about tonight for right now, anyway, give us a call, join the discussion.

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

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

The show about gun rights, gun safety and responsible Guto the ship.

This is the Gun Guy, Guy Ralford on ninety three w y DC.

And welcome back.

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

I'll tell you what we're talking self defense.

But let's go to the phone lines.

Hugh's been on hold for a while.

Hugh, Welcome to the Gun Guy Show.

How are you good, sir?

Are you doing all right?

I'm doing great?

Good?

Which guy for us?

I'm the ride share guy and I'm on my way to Bloomington to work to Illinois.

Gay, Oh awesome.

I'll tell you what I'm saying.

I hope we don't get cut I hope we don't get cut off.

I understand, we'll do our best.

What what you guy for us?

Okay, I'll try to be real brief.

I've been retired about ten years.

And being being a ride shar river, I see a lot of stuff.

I picked up some kids and it couldn't have been no more than fifteen years years old at that gun shop up there at about fifty fifth in Tacoma.

I think, do you know the one I'm talking about?

Sure?

All the time, and I took I took them to some apartments at seventeenth in park right next to the Kroger that should have been torn down been rebuilt forty years ago.

Do you know which one I'm talking about there too?

Right?

I think so?

The very next morning someone got shot and killed in that parking lot.

About a week later, there.

Was a carjacking at gunpoint at fourteenth in Alabama.

These kids live in this neighborhood.

And I've done this.

More than once, more than different groups.

One time I fixed some kids up and dropped them off.

Took them up to thirty six and post turn right, turn left, dropped them off right there.

The very next night I had taken a woman home and they had that old street blocked off and lit up because some might shot at a cop.

Now I can't say that these were the kids that did that's stuff, but.

You know, just the body.

Well yeah, you and I guess I'm not sure where you're going with this.

Are you concerned that they were able to buy guns illegally?

It's my concern that that it's easy for these kids to get guns.

Okay, all right, Well, let me tell you and and listen to be an involved citizen, to be concerned about what's going on, to be paying attention around you.

Those are all good things.

But you know what you estimated.

These kids were fifteen or so.

And let me tell you I and I do business there.

I teach classes there.

I only have any kind of ownership interest or anything other than I teach classes there.

But you're talking about Indie Arms.

And let me tell you.

If there's a gun store in Marion County or Indianapolis that I'm one hundred percent confident that follows the rules and then some on selling guns, it's Indie Arms concern.

I know their sales manager.

It's a great guy and an ultimate professional.

The guys that work there and a fifteen year olds, I'll tell you, right now, did not walk into Indie Arms by a gun.

Didn't happen.

They they follow the law.

They take their responsibility very seriously.

I've been in there just shopping myself when they were just concerned because one person, you know, you say, two people come in there together and one of them is kind of looking at the different guns and kind of saying, you know, I kind of like this one, kind of look that like that one, and then the other one says, you know, I want to buy this gun right here.

You know, I want to buy this clock block nineteen, this one right here.

I've watched them do it.

Say you know what, I have a little concern that you're not the actual purchaser.

I'm not accusing you of trying to do a straw purchase, but I'm uncomfortable making this sale.

I'm sorry, We're not gonna be able to do business with you today.

Could they have made that sale, could it have been legal?

Absolutely?

But but but they go above and beyond.

So listen again, I applaud you for being observant and paying attention to your surroundings.

And if you have concerns about, you know, these kids perhaps being involved, then then by all means call authorities and all that's good and positive, and I applaud that element of it.

But we say it's easy for these kids to get guns.

Fifteen year olds or anything close to that didn't or even if they were handguns, you gotta be twenty one.

So there they are far removed from the ability to legally buy a gun.

And they didn't walk into Indian Arms or I think, frankly any other FFL that is registered licensed gun dealer in Indianapolis and buy a gun.

I mean, those people are not going to stay in business, and they're they're potentially going to go to jail themselves for I legally selling guns.

So I hear you know, gun control people say that all the time, Wow, it's just too easy for people to get guns.

Well, it may be too easy to get guns illegally, that is from fellow criminals on the streets or fellow gang members, but not walking into gun stores and buying them from a FFL, a federal firearms licensee at a particular one.

I know for a fact that take their legal responsibilities so seriously, Like the good folks there at Indie Arms.

So again, I teach classes there.

I know these folks they're friends of mine.

I've had a business relationship.

So take that all for what it's worth, but I say it emphatically and without reservation.

We're a little past the three quarter hour.

Let's take a break.

We'll come back out talk again about self defense.

And we've all got another couple of people on holds.

We'll go to the phone lines as well.

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

We 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.

We've got a bit of a short segment here, did anyway, and then we got the severe storm warning.

Hey, if you're in the affected area, you know, keep an eye on your surroundings, don't hesitate to get yourself to a place of safety if conditions warrant.

So thanks to Nashville, to the National Weather Service, I can talk for issuing that warning.

I'll tell you what.

We don't have a lot of time.

Let's go to the phone lines and Brian's been on hold for a while.

Brian, Welcome to the Gun Guy Show.

Hi counselor.

I would just had a comment about rape, and you only I used to be an assistant and rape classes back in the day, and you only have a brief moment to decide if you're a victim or a survivor.

Yeah, And my question was, how do you buy a gun from a directly from a manufacturer?

Oh, well, you know, every manufacturer is going to have its own rules.

Typically, Brian, you need to be an FFL, that is, have your Federal firearms license.

And even then depending on the manufacturer, may be difficult.

But because a lot of them only sell through distributors, even to FFLs that is Federal firearms licensees.

But I don't want to, you know, generalize across all manufacturers because they could each have their own rules.

A lot of times you can order some manufacturers anyway.

You can order from their website and they just will ship it to an FFL near you and that's where you go to pick it up and fill out the forty four to seventy three and get your background checked done.

I'll tell you what.

We've only got about a minute, so I'm not going to go back to the phone lines.

You folks that are on hold, please have patients and stick around with us during the break at the top of the hour.

We'll go back to the phone lines here when we come back after the break at the top of the hour.

But I want to talk about self defense.

Remember I was saying that the word necessary, that is, you must reasonably believe that it's necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to you or a third person, or to prevent the commission of a forcible family before you can use deadly force.

Under the general self Defense statue, you have to believe that it's necessary to use deadly force to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry into or attack on your dwelling.

Now, again, the castle doctrine in Indiana goes a little more broadly than that, talks about critilage, which always is an interesting discussion, an occupied motor vehicle, which is I think a very positive part of Indiana's law.

But the word necessary is there.

The word necessary is actually why we have a stand your ground provision in the Indiana Self Defense Statute.

And I'll explain that after the break at the top of the hour.

And the general explanation, which I'll get into more specifically, is if you can run away first, is it ever necessary to use force and self defense.

Well, that's what the castle doctrine.

Excuse me, that's what the standard ground provision of the law addresses.

But right now we're taking a break to the top of the hour.

Will be back soon, it says Guy Ralford 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 bo.

Guy Ralford on ninety three WYBC.

And welcome back to our number two, The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WIBC, talking about the self defense law and why the word necessary actually is the reason why we have stand your ground provisions in a lot of the different states self defense laws across the country.

What am I talking about?

If you're just joining us, let me recap here just a bit.

Indiana self Defense Statute talks about different scenarios when you're justified and using force in self defense or defense.

But a third person and the two most often cited ones are what I call the general self defense provision that says, and this is what applies to you, no matter where you are, could be at home, you could be out on the street, wherever you are within the state of Indiana, this applies.

And it says you can use reasonable force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to you or a third person, or the commission of a forcable felony.

That reasonably believe that it is necessary necessary being an important word.

And then the castle doctrine, you can use reasonable force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe that force is necessary important word for you to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry into or attack on you're dwelling.

That's why we call it castle doctrine.

You're defending your castle, your home.

You're dwelling curtilage or occupied in other vehicle.

And I've spent big chunks of shows before talking about curtilage.

I won't go into detail on that.

Essentially, it's an area that may not be within the walls of your home, but where you still have an expectation of privacy and where normal domestic activities occur and people seem to think that's their whole yard, their whole property.

No, no, no, it would be like you're screened in porch where you have an expectation of privacy, where normal domestic activities occur.

In other words, you're doing the same thing there that you do in your home.

Beyond that, I'm not confident when there's not a single case in Indiana in a self defense context that talks about what curtilage is.

So to me, it's so poorly defined and so vague.

I'm not relying on that in order to use force to defend my home.

I'm going to have to rely on a general self defense statute and make sure I have that reasonable belief I'm preventing serious bodily injury from me or someone else, or the commission of a force fall filling.

That goes on to say, you're occupied motor vehicle.

Your has to be your vehicle that's occupied, but you are another innocent person.

You can prevent or terminate an unlawful entry of or attack on your occupied motor vehicle.

That's the castle doctrine.

But the word necessaries in both those provisions, by the way, it's in the other two provision.

One deals with use of force against a what's called a public servant, and the statute it actually deals with use of force against police officers who are acting unlawfully against you.

And then the other, the fourth one, is the use of force, including deadly for to prevent the hijacking of an airplane.

Those are the four provisions of the Indiana Self Defense Statute.

They all have that word necessary in them.

You have to believe it's necessary, and then it goes on to define the standards that you must meet in order to be justified.

Well, what some courts did historically is they came out and they looked at the word necessary and said, hold on, you can never have this reasonable belief that the use of deadly force is necessary if you have an opportunity to run away first.

And so some courts, not in Indiana, but across the country, some courts started imposing an obligation to flee, to retreat, to run away if you have the opportunity to do so.

And in some states the law still operates that way.

They're not quote unquote stand your ground states.

If you have an opportunity to run away, you have to run away, believe it or not.

In some states even in your home under their so called castle doctrine, if you have, if you have an opportunity to run out the back door when someone breaks in your home, you have to do that.

How ridiculous is that?

And leave the bad guy in your house?

Oh hell no, oh hell no.

But that's the way some states function, not any red states, as you might guess.

So to address that, what some courts were doing by imposing an obligation to retreat, to run away before you have the ability to defend yourself or others, a lot of states built into their self defense law what we call is stand your ground provision in an Indiana statute, all that is, it's just one line that just says with no obligation to retreat, and that alone is what makes it a stand your ground law.

In other words, the statute says, can you use reasonable force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe that force is necessary to prevent serious final injury and everything I've now repeated several times, and then it says, right in the statue, with no duty to retreat, And just that little provision, just those very few words, is what makes it a stand your ground law.

Now that gets mischaracterized all the time, and people don't understand how that works, and people tend to use stand your ground to refer to a whole self defense statute.

I mean, how many times have you seen the media do that?

And I have members of the media call me all the time.

Guy, I want to talk to you about how this works under Indiana stand your Ground law.

And I won't have anything to do with stand your ground or that particular provision.

It doesn't apply.

Nobody's saying somebody needed to run away first, which is the only application of stand your ground.

There's just it takes away a court saying that you couldn't have believed force was necessary because you could have run away.

It negates that argument on behalf of the prosecution or the state when they're considering whether they to prosecute you for a crime, or they're prosecuting you for a crime, they can't say you had the opportunity to run away, so you should have done that, because a statute says with no opportunity to retreat, you still have to meet the standard.

So, in other words, if if a jury would conclude that there's no way under the circumstances, you had any reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary under those circumstances, Totally separate and apart from any doty to run away.

If you just didn't have that requisite belief, standard ground does nothing for you.

It just takes away one argument, which is, oh, you could have run away, therefore you didn't have the ability to defend yourself.

But people all the time and again people call me, well, under the standard ground law, and I'll be going, you mean the self defense law.

Well, now, in Indiana we call it the standard ground law.

Well, no, we have a standard ground provision within our self defense law.

That's only how that works.

Well under our castle doctrine law.

Well, the castle doctrine is one of four sections under our self defense statute talks about the use of force in self defense or defense of others or in that case, defense of your home under different scenarios.

But that's how that works.

But it all revolves around the idea we need to take away this argument that you could have run away first, therefore you couldn't have had a reasonable belief that force was necessary or the deadly force was necessary.

That's how standard ground works.

And the whole statue is not a standard ground statue.

Now, all four provisions.

Whether it's the General Self Defense Statute out that applies to you no matter where you are, including out in public, or the Castle Document applies to you in your home or critilage or occupied motor vehicle, or there's one provision now dealing with the use force against police officers who were acting unlawfully or preventing the hijack gave an airplane.

Those are the four different sections sub sections Indian Self Defense Statute.

They all have a standard ground provision in them, meaning in none of those circumstances where you're otherwise justifying, you have to be otherwise justified.

That's what everybody needs to understand because the media all the time portrays stand your ground laws as well.

These just justify the use of force anytime you want, anywhere you are, no matter what's going on.

You can say, well, I'm going to stand my ground and shooting anybody I want or hurt anybody I want, And all I have to do is say stand your ground and some magic talisman that justifies what you did.

That's not how it works, that's not remotely how it works, but that's how that works.

Uh.

And in terms of negating the argument that you could have run away.

That's really how it works.

We're gonna change topics when we come back and go to the phone lines as we kind of move on from self defense.

You want to give us a call, join the discussion.

Where we always love going to the phone lines is three one seven two nine ninety three ninety three three one seven ninety three ninety three.

Give us a call and join the discussion.

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

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

And welcome back.

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

I'll tell you what we're switching topics.

Let's go to the phone lines and let's see here.

We've had David on hold for quite a while.

David, Welcome to the Gun Guy Show.

Hey go ahead.

I know you're good today, but I enjoy your show almost every week.

Thank you so much.

Anyhow, a couple of years ago I had a gun, a handgun that was stolen, and the first of this year, twenty twenty five, I received notification from the Gun Recovery Department that my gun had been recovered.

Is this Mary County by the way, Yes, Okay, that's unfortunate.

Okay, go ahead, yes, and so the uh and they told me what I need to do, that I need to bring out a copy of the original receipt my ID, and I did, and I went down.

They took all the information.

They said, in six months, well or six weeks, will tell you to come and get it.

Well, in six weeks I got another email.

That said, hey, the detective doesn't want to release it for some reason.

You need to contact the detectee.

Nobody can tell me who the detective is because the gun was stolen in Hancock County.

Okay, and I'm the victim here, No, I get it.

And listen, David, the issue with Marion County has been ongoing for a long time.

I did a whole uh sort of an expose on this with Richard Essex Fox fifty nine, and we talked a lot about this and in particular how I think Marion County is really violating people's rights.

But the first thing to know is if they did, well, do you know, did they indicate to you they caught the guy who stole your gun and he's being prosecuted.

No, they did not indicate that.

Okay, well, the way the way that works is and the reason for them not releasing it.

It's great news that actually first that you have a copy of your receipt, because not for a lot of people don't.

I mean, people buy guns from private individuals.

People are you know, their they're willed guns.

In other words, they inherit guns.

There's no receipt and you know, people trade guns.

I mean, do I have a written receipt for every gun I own?

Not even close, probably not half.

I mean some guns I've built, what you want me to bring you the receipts from all the parts, the lower receiver and the you know, I mean, it's a little ridiculous.

And then they put every gun through a forensic analysis.

In other words, they test fire it.

They run the projectile and the shellcasing if it's a semi automatic or even as a revolver for that matter, looking at at at firing pin markings and whatnot.

And and they run everything through forensics before they'll even put it in Q to release it.

But one of the things that has to happen is the detective does need to release it.

And and and there's only part of this that might be reasonable, and that is that if somebody is being prosecuted.

Let's just say they caught somebody that stole your gun, they caught the purse, and that person's being prosecuted.

Well, that evidence then is, or that gun rather is evidence in that case.

And eventually they're going to put that detective on the stand in a criminal case if they don't have got it complete out and the case would go to trial, they're gonna put the evidence on the detective rather on the stand and say, and did you recover a gun?

Yes?

I did, And let me hand you states exhibit A.

Is this the gun?

Yes, that's the gun.

And did you run a search for that yes?

And did you determine based on the serial number and the trace you ran on that gun that it was stolen?

Yes?

I did?

And where was it stolen from?

Da da da da dah?

And what's all the evidence that indicates this guy's guilty?

And the detective explains all that, but the gun is a central piece of evidence in that case, and they need the gun to go to trial.

Or let's say the guy's already been tried and convicted, but now he's appealing his conviction.

Well, they have to preserve all the evidence.

So the fact that the detective doesn't want to release it, could he just be being a jerk theoretically, or it could be an ongoing case.

They haven't closed the case yet, and that's why the detective doesn't want to release the gun, because it's evidence in an ongoing case.

The guy pleads guilty cases over all, right, now you've done everything else you've needed to do to be able to pick up your gun.

That's the good news.

Bad news is the detective does need to release it, and I completely understand why.

If there's an ongoing prosecution, they're not going to release the number one most important piece of evidence in that case.

Let's go back to the phone lines and Mike has a question.

Mike, welcome to the Gun Guy Show.

Hey guy, how are you doing so good?

Man?

Are you doing all right?

Very good?

Quick question?

So, I am going to Alaska next year hunting, and if I drive or fly through Illinoy legally, if I have a suppressor that I have for my wife, my fundy rifle bolt action three hundred win mag it's not a you know, a weapon of war or anything like that.

I to my understanding that federally, I am covered that I am not breaking the law, But in Illinois, I'm committing a felony.

What am I supposed to do if I want to drive or fly through Illinois?

Because I heard a couple of cases on the East coast of the United States, people who had, you know, magazines that were over you know, ten rounds or suppressor they got prosecuted.

So what legally am I supposed to do?

Well, it's a great question, and listen to.

Bad news is that suppressors are illegal in Illinois.

So as far as your can goes, and hey, listen, I've I'd love to know what you're set up is.

And I've got a three hundred win mag that I run a seven to sixty two suppressor on that.

That's my favorite setup.

Beautiful rifle made from me by Joe Bell.

But at any rate, suppressors are illegal in Illinois.

Now theoretically, if you're driving through and firearms are considered or excuse me, suppressors are considered firearms under a federal law.

And there's something called the Firearm Owners Protection Act of nineteen eighty six that has a safe harbor provision in it that says a person if they're traveling from a place where possession of a firearm is legal to a place where that possession is legal, they can pass through any other state or political subdivision meaning local government, and that's legal notwithstanding the laws of that state or political subdivision.

So theoretically, and now there are requirements gun.

If it's a gun has to be unloaded, it has to be in a separate compartment from the passenger compartment, meeting in the trunk.

If there is there's no separate compartment meaning trunk, that has to be in a locked container, separate from any ammunition.

Theoretically, you could comply with all of that and be protected under the Firearms Owner Protection Acts in nineteen eighty six.

Do I think every local cop or state cop in Illinois understands FOPA the federal statute?

Absolutely not.

Do I think if they catch you with a suppressor in Illinois they would take you to jail?

Yes, I believe that.

Now would someone figure it out, whether in law enforcement or a local prosecutor or your defense attorney.

Hopefully yes, And you don't get convicted of any crime depending on relying on the protections of this safe harbor provision within the Firearm Owners Protection Act to nineteen eighty six.

But I don't trust that to save my life.

If I were taking my rifle with my suppressor to Alaska to go hunting, and that sounds awesome, I'm not even a big hunter, and that just sounds like an awesome trip.

So congratulations on Edule in that.

I would find an FFL in Alaska that's close to where you're gonna hunt or where you're gonna fly through perhaps, and I would ship it to that FFL, have them hold it from me.

I'd pick it up there and then and then after I'm through with my hunt and I'm getting ready to fly home, I would ship it back and not have to worry about the knuckleheads in Illinois and the ridiculous laws, because again, suppressors outside law enforcement and military is just illegal to even possess a suppressor in Illinois.

It's like you know, having a quilo of cocaine.

As ridiculous as that is, I mean, it's an accessory that makes you a better neighbor, protects your hearing.

It's the dumbest thing ever, but that's Illinois.

That's where it stands Now.

Hopefully that gets overturned along with a lot of other Illinois gun laws, whether in the Supreme Court or otherwise.

But that's where we are.

So I would not, notwithstanding FOPA, I would not take my suppressor through Illinois.

I just simply would not.

With at the bottom of the Howard taking a break, our buddy Kelly has called in, So we'll go back to the phone lines when we go to Kelly and Avon here after the bottom of the hour.

Right now, we're taking a break.

This is Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy Show.

Give us a call, Join the discussion.

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

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

Second to none on this second amendment.

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.

As I mentioned, let's go back to the phone lines, and our pal Kelly and Avon has called in.

Kelly, welcome back to the Gun Guy Show.

Always a pleasure.

Hey, it's good to be on Guy.

How are you?

I'm great man, you'll be having a good weekend.

Oh yeah, real good.

But I was wanting to talk about it as an NBC News article, but I believe it was Ingo or kW posted it earlier today and after reading through it.

If I'm not speaking in complete sentences, it's because of the IQ points I lost after reading this article.

It is the two individuals that wrote it.

I think it surprised them.

There are large caliber rifles, and there are a lot of them in this country.

There is a sentence in this that reads there are believes to be millions.

It's speaking of the of course, the Mauser thirty to six that was used to assassinate Charlie Kirk.

There are believes to be millions of such weapons in homes across the country.

But yeah, they also don't seem to realize Mauser certainly made military firearms, they also made a lot of civilian firearms.

These are and they used the word vintage when speaking about this, and as a potential this is actually from it potential for would be assassins to seek out powerful, accurate and hard to trace firearms, because well, they've been around a long time.

I know they they traced that Mouser.

They're in they're in Utah to the murderer using fingerprints in DNA, so they didn't have to know where Grandpa got his his sporter Mouser from exactly.

And that's and by the way, I wouldn't call it.

I wouldn't call a sport mouser vintage firearm by any stretch of imagination.

In fact, I believe it had a synthetic stock on it.

Yes, it did have a have a more modern stock on it.

I prefer the woodwinds myself.

I'm kind of old school, but yeah, if it doesn't shoot black powder cartridges, I wouldn't call it vintage pretty much.

How I look at it, and uh yeah, it's just a yeah, it's kind of scary when you look at this and they're talking about and not being able to trace it is always a thing, you know, like with ghost guns, because you know they're they're shootier if you can't trace them.

Yeah, but if you get it with the criminals, well that you just traced it both soors you need to right there.

Well exactly, And Kelly, I'm glad you called because to me, the points to something that I've been saying for a lot of years.

And the reaction from the left, particularly the calls for more gun control from the left, which of course we're completely predictable, but all that points to something I've been saying for a long time, which is, you know, the the the calls for gun control that we've been hearing for a long long time, things like, well, if we can just ban assault weapons quote unquote, then we'll put an end to school shootings or or you know, and the the implication is we'll be done, we'll be happy, we'll be satisfied as gun control proponents, whether it's Mom's Demand Action, or the Brady Center or or any number of these, you know, the the Giffords Group, whatever it might be.

You know, just give us these assault weapons, you know, and we'll to save so many lives.

It's a lie.

It's always been a lie.

And the NBC article that you're talking about, Kelly, is a perfect example, because they're they're looking at how scary and and and you know, and threatening and worrysome these bold action hunting rifles on for a bunch of ridiculous, made up reasons that some of which Kelly just mentioned.

It just goes to show you that whatever they get in terms of gun control, what what, whatever they accomplish that that's just the next, the next check mark on their list.

They're not done.

They'll go to the next gun after that, and the next gun after that.

And particularly when you consider that the vast majority of so called gun crimes or so called gun violence in this country, the vast majority is committed with handguns.

So until they have a complete ban on all guns, handguns included, and if, for crying out loud, now we're literally talking about Grandpa's hunting rifle, it just goes to show they'll never be happy until they eradicate guns completely.

And of course that would require repealing or incredibly dramatically modifying the Second Amendment, which I don't see happening in my lifetime, but I'm getting kind of old.

But it just goes to show how they'll never be happy, because you know, when they're talking about the weapons of war and the AR fifteen and the AK forty seven and the so called assault weapons, which we all know is a made up political term, but they talk about those things, they all say, well, you know, we're okay with you having your rifle for hunting, but you know, and then you see these ridiculous comments from gun control proponents things like, well, an AR fifteen is so powerful, you could never use it hunting because it would destroy the game.

You know, the meat would be inedible if you went hunting with an AR fIF No, in most plays, you can't go hunting with an a R fifteen or particularly the five, five six or two two three round because it's not lethal enough.

It's not lethal enough to ensure an ethical kill as part of your hunt.

It's not powerful enough.

It's not lethal enough.

But they'll say, well, you know your grandpa's hunting rifle.

That's okay, That's what they've always said, And now they're saying, oh, no, grandpa's hunting rifle.

Literally, grandpa's hunting rifle was used in a crime.

Now we need to look at potentially banning those two.

It just goes to show you that they'll never ever ever be happy that it only ratchets in one direction for these people, and anything you give them that's just checking the next thing off their list.

And they're not going away.

They're never going away until they get every gun that's out there.

Now.

Do I think they'll be successful in doing that?

Absolutely not.

Are the political tides earning in their proper direction and the right direction on these issues right now, you bet, but make no mistaken about what the agenda is.

And the NBC article that Kelly just mentioned is exhibit a improving that because when you start talking about how scary the millions and millions of bold action hunting rifles are out there, and the implication being we need to look at regulating these or banning them, that shows to show you that nothing's safe.

If Grandpa's hunting rifles not safe, there's nothing safe.

Nothing that smacks of primer in a chamber is safe from these people.

When they start taking that kind of an approach to the gun control issue, well, I'll tell you what we're worth a three quarter hours time to take a break.

Let's take a break here.

We'll be back for the last section of The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WYBC, 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 to the last segment of tonight's The Gun Guy Show here on ninety three WIBC.

A bit of a shout out, but also a question regarding the Trump DOJ and Listen, the Department of Justice under Pam Bondi for the most part, has been I don't want to say a surprise, but you know a lot of people had questions about Pam Bondy when she was selected, nominated, and then confirmed as Trump's Attorney General to run the Department of Justice, because she had taken some positions that a lot of people saw as being anti Second Amendment while she was Florida Attorney General.

So, for instance, while she was Attorney general, it was after the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas school shooting in Parkland, Florida, Florida passed the law raised the age to buy a rifle or a shotgun under Florida law to twenty one.

And listen, federal law says, and this is being challenged now, and something I'm going to talk about here in just a second, federal law says you have to be twenty one to buy a handgun, but you can buy a shotgun or a rifle at eighteen.

Florida passed the law after Parkland that said no, you have to be twenty one to buy a rifle or a shotgun as well.

In addition, Florida very much beefed up it's so called red flag law, and both of those were challenged.

Both of them were challenged in court.

And while she was Florida Attorney General, I mean, her job as Florida Attorney General was to defend the laws of the State of Florida on behalf of the state.

And she came out in favor of their red flag statue, came out in favor of the law that raised the age to buy a rifle or a shotgun to twenty one, and a lot of people looked at that and said, hold on, she's going to now be our attorney general.

That's a problem.

And a lot of articles written on this, a lot of discussion, well since she's been in place under Trump, and Trump came out and said early on he campaigned on this.

He said this early after being inaugurated for his second term under his presidency, especially for his second term, because I'd give him about a c in terms of what happened during his first term.

But he came out and said, hey, we're going to be champions of the Second Amendment and the pam BONDI rundj As for the most part, delivered on that.

They have dropped some lawsuits.

They settled the forced reset trigger lawsuit and resolved that in a way that for now certainly results in forced reset triggers being legal.

I'm glad because I have one in one of my ars and love the hell out of it.

It's a lot of fun, and they've come out positively and as far as taking positive positions and other pending cases, and I'm still waiting for them to do more.

I want to see ATF actually repeal the pistol brace rule.

It's been declared unenforceable by the courts.

That's great, but it's still on the books.

I want to see it completely eradicated off the books.

ATF can do that if they want to.

The bumpstock band's been declared illegal all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Okay, let's get it off the books.

And then one thing that again I'm very pleased to see, because this obviously is a huge issue and an issue that needs to be resolved by the Supreme Court is Pam Bondi's DOJ has filed an amikas brief that is a friend of the court brief.

They're not actually a party, but you can file as a non part of the litigation.

But someone who's interested in the outcome of litigation, you can come in and file what's called Amika's cure brief friend of the Court, and the Department of Justice has filed an Amikas brief in the case challenging the Illinois We just talked about suppressors being illegal in Illinois, Well, Illinois also makes so called assault weapons illegal and so called high capacity magazines illegal.

And again, don't quibble with me on the use of those terms.

Yes I know it's standard capacity magazine, and yes i know an assault weapon quote unquote is a made up political term meant to demonize the most popular rifles in America.

But for shorthand purposes, that's what we're calling them.

In terms of the lawsuit challenging those the DOJ, the United States government has filed a brief supporting the unconstitutionality of those bands.

That's fantastic.

The DOJ has weighed in on New Jersey's complete ban on standard magazines and assault weapons.

Where you have the federal government weighing in on these issues, that's huge and I'm glad to see it.

Where I'm a little bit taken aback and I'm disappointed is the DOJ has also taken a position because I mentioned eighteen to twenty year olds being able to purchase guns.

Well, the federal law that challenges the requirement to be twenty one to buy a handgun, even though you can buy epistol or a shotgun at eighteen.

That's being challenged in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on a case that came out of Louisiana, and the Fifth Circuits actually already ruled that that's unconstitutional.

That yes, eighteen to twenty year olds have constitutional rights too well, thank goodness, and are protected under the Second Amendment, and their right to possess firearms, including handguns, is protected by the Second Amendment, and the federal rule saying you have to be twenty one violates those eighteen to twenty year olds constitutional freedoms, and that's beautiful.

It's now been sent back to the trial court to apply the Fifth Circuit's ruling, which is this is unconstitutional, in particular, to enter judgment that will likely have as part of it an injunction, meaning telling the government that they cannot enforce this twenty one year old requirement.

The question becomes, though, how broad that injunction is, because what we've seen in other cases is we've seen injunctions entered.

And this is where even Trump's victory on saying that individual district court judges can't enjoin the Trump administration from enforcing immigration policy across the whole country, and that happened.

Hey, was that good in the context of immigration.

Absolutely.

I looked at that and said, well, let's be careful because we've seen nationwide injunctions issued on behalf of gun owners, including back on the bumpstock ban first and then later on pistol braces.

Well, here they're now arguing how broad the the injunction should be, and the Justice Farmers taking a position it only should be the named plaintiffs in that case, not everybody else.

That's something we'll see how the court enters it, and we'll see whether that's upheld.

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

Hope you enjoyed it.

Hope you coming back.

Remember, always be safe, always shoot straight.

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