Riley Bowman: This is the Concealed Carry Podcast, Season 14, Episode 6.
Riley Bowman: And welcome to the Concealed Carry
Riley Bowman: Podcast, part of the ConcealedCarry.com network brought to you by HK.
Riley Bowman: Today is Friday, August 28th, 2026, as of the recording of this live episode.
Riley Bowman: I'm your host, Riley Bowman, joined today by co-host, Jacob Paulson.
Jacob Paulsen: That's me.
Riley Bowman: That's him. That guy over there. Glad to have you with me and doing an episode with you.
Riley Bowman: We're doing a legislative updates episode today. We've got a lot to cover,
Riley Bowman: actually. It's been a busy month, actually, on the legislative slash judicial side of things.
Jacob Paulsen: And we normally would do this once a month anyway, roughly. And it's been basically
Jacob Paulsen: a month since we did the last one. But yeah, I was, you know,
Jacob Paulsen: like in hindsight, like, holy crap, it's been a busy month.
Riley Bowman: Yeah, there's been like thing after thing after thing in just the last few weeks even.
Riley Bowman: So pretty exciting to see some of what's going on, particularly on the judicial side of things.
Riley Bowman: In fact, most of our news today is, well, it's judicial.
Riley Bowman: There's some that's executive branch, governmental, you know,
Riley Bowman: change of priorities and whatnot.
Riley Bowman: And there's a little bit of legislative news as well, as far as mainly some
Riley Bowman: things out of California we'll tackle here later in the episode.
Riley Bowman: But first, today's episode, we've got to talk about some quick sponsors today.
Riley Bowman: Brought to you by our Concealed Carry
Riley Bowman: Gun Tools app, which can be found at concealedcarry.com forward slash app.
Jacob Paulsen: That's free.
Riley Bowman: Yeah, totally free. Yep. We'll talk some more in depth about it here after a
Riley Bowman: couple of stories that we get out of our way.
Riley Bowman: Also, today's other episode sponsor is Barrel Block.
Jacob Paulsen: Not free. Yeah.
Riley Bowman: Yeah, I wish it could be free. As far as like, that would feel good,
Riley Bowman: but we wouldn't make any money.
Jacob Paulsen: That'd be a problem.
Riley Bowman: That would be a problem.
Jacob Paulsen: We'd lose money, yeah.
Riley Bowman: So BarrelBlock.com is a good link that will get you there.
Riley Bowman: So hopefully you'll check that out. We'll talk some more about that also later
Riley Bowman: in the episode. So we're going to move right along.
Riley Bowman: We're going to jump right into some stories here. This first one is our first
Riley Bowman: legislative story that we're going to cover today.
Riley Bowman: Talking specifically about some stuff going on in California.
Riley Bowman: Three anti-gun bills that have been passed by the state legislature.
Riley Bowman: They are sitting on Governor Newsom's desk waiting to be signed,
Riley Bowman: and I suspect they will be signed.
Riley Bowman: I don't – it would shock me, I guess, in other words, if a governor with his
Riley Bowman: track record was like, no, I'm not signing these.
Jacob Paulsen: Yeah, true. Though I think there's some recall efforts going on against the
Jacob Paulsen: governor right now. So, yeah, he better hurry.
Riley Bowman: He's got aspirations to be the big head honcho of our nation Train wreck,
Jacob Paulsen: It'll never happen But yeah.
Riley Bowman: It's going to make it more difficult too For passing some of these things perhaps
Riley Bowman: California is still the most populous state in the nation By pretty good margin Yes,
Jacob Paulsen: But it has had negative growth for like many years now Yeah.
Riley Bowman: Rather fascinating Let's talk about these three bills out of California.
Riley Bowman: Senate Bill 948. So apparently there's a purchase...
Riley Bowman: Permit to purchase.
Jacob Paulsen: There you go.
Riley Bowman: That exists in California, but that up to now was pretty straightforward, not too complicated.
Riley Bowman: Go online, some California DOJ website, answer some questions,
Riley Bowman: and bam, here you go. Yeah.
Jacob Paulsen: And we're using the term permit to purchase kind of generically because that's
Jacob Paulsen: how we describe this kind of a scheme. Yeah.
Jacob Paulsen: But in California specifically, it's a firearm safety certificate, an FSC.
Riley Bowman: Yeah. It's not the only state or jurisdiction that has something like this,
Riley Bowman: but they are now, the Senate Bill 948 is going to create a training component to that. Mandatory.
Jacob Paulsen: In-person.
Riley Bowman: In-person classroom time, live fire shooting time.
Riley Bowman: Basically, you got to go through, sit through a class, probably pass a test in that class.
Riley Bowman: And part of that sounds like is a shooting test as well.
Riley Bowman: Like you've got to shoot some rounds and presumably, I don't know if they're
Riley Bowman: going to have a state mandated qual or if it's just whatever the instructor
Riley Bowman: designs, but something that shows
Riley Bowman: competency, knowledge based as well as shooting based that then allows you to
Riley Bowman: get a permit to go purchase a firearm.
Jacob Paulsen: I think we're going to see more states roll out systems like this because the forecast of gun rights,
Jacob Paulsen: if you're checking the forecast, is such that in the not-too-distant future,
Jacob Paulsen: states are going to realize they can't ban anything. We're going to talk about that today too.
Jacob Paulsen: And so I think what you're going to see is anti-gunners are going to say,
Jacob Paulsen: well, if the Supreme Court won't let us ban stuff, then we can just make it harder to get the stuff.
Jacob Paulsen: We can require a process that is both painful, time-consuming,
Jacob Paulsen: and expensive and inconvenient.
Jacob Paulsen: And that is the closest we can get to basically banning the thing.
Jacob Paulsen: And states like Illinois have been doing this for a long time but it's getting
Jacob Paulsen: more arduous is what we're seeing.
Jacob Paulsen: The new permit to purchase system that's now in effect as of the first of this
Jacob Paulsen: month in Colorado, it does not apply to all guns but to those guns that it does
Jacob Paulsen: apply to that permit to purchase program is very arduous.
Jacob Paulsen: And so now you see California basically taking their existing system and saying
Jacob Paulsen: let's make this more arduous.
Riley Bowman: Yep. Yeah, I think it's only a matter of time before here in Colorado because,
Riley Bowman: you know, as you pointed out,
Riley Bowman: right now applies to essentially AR style, AK style semi-automatic detachable
Riley Bowman: magazine firearms. Yeah.
Jacob Paulsen: Mosselmanos.
Riley Bowman: It's probably up this next legislative session. It would not surprise me if
Riley Bowman: they're like, let's just do that across the board for everything.
Jacob Paulsen: Yeah. There's going to be, there's going to be, there's already lawsuits against it too.
Riley Bowman: Where do you think this type of approach that some of these states are taking
Riley Bowman: fits in the current judicial framework with, you know, Bruin.
Jacob Paulsen: Too far. Okay. So I think there's maybe two different questions you're asking,
Jacob Paulsen: or at least I interpret it as two questions. The first question is sort of,
Jacob Paulsen: is this constitutional? Like, will this flush out in a court system to survive or to die?
Jacob Paulsen: And I think the answer is to die. There's no historical tradition of forcing
Jacob Paulsen: people to get any sort of training or undergo any sort of anything.
Jacob Paulsen: Period. So that's problematic.
Jacob Paulsen: And then you also, I mean, we're going to talk today about what happened in
Jacob Paulsen: New Mexico, which I think is also indicative of the kind of thing that you're looking at here.
Jacob Paulsen: You know, like the question that's being asked is, is there a demonstrative
Jacob Paulsen: public safety benefit to the delaying of or the barrier that's in place to exercise these rights?
Jacob Paulsen: That's what Bruin would establish as the framework, right?
Jacob Paulsen: Is there a demonstrable public safety benefit and is there a historical analog?
Jacob Paulsen: Well, there's definitely no historical analog. That's just outright silly.
Jacob Paulsen: And we've seen several attempts to try and find something like that for other
Jacob Paulsen: reasons in recent times. So we know that that's going to be a fail.
Jacob Paulsen: So then the question has to be asked, is there a demonstrable public safety benefit?
Jacob Paulsen: And I think the answer to that is no. But,
Jacob Paulsen: the other side, I guess, the other question I think you're asking is sort of
Jacob Paulsen: like, well, how long will it take for the judicial branch of the government,
Jacob Paulsen: for the lawsuits and the whatevers, to get to a point that it all culminates
Jacob Paulsen: and the Supreme Court demolishes these permit-to-purchase programs?
Jacob Paulsen: I think the answer to that question is several years away. I mean,
Jacob Paulsen: probably, probably not in this decade, but if so, toward the end of this decade.
Riley Bowman: I guess a part of me that finds this kind of fascinating is,
Riley Bowman: you know, states like Illinois has had something like this for a long time.
Riley Bowman: And the fact that that hasn't yet been successfully challenged and or taken
Riley Bowman: up, you know, to the higher courts of the land in light of Bruin is kind of
Riley Bowman: surprising to me, I think.
Jacob Paulsen: Well, yeah, I mean, the Illinois version, the Foyt card, is not very arduous.
Jacob Paulsen: Right. And so I think it seems probably hard to challenge, right?
Jacob Paulsen: And this California thing, the firearm safety certificate, was much more,
Jacob Paulsen: I should say currently now, is much more analogous to what Illinois does,
Jacob Paulsen: assuming this bill doesn't get signed.
Jacob Paulsen: Once this bill gets signed, now it becomes a very arduous thing that I think
Jacob Paulsen: is easy to challenge in court. So, yeah, I wouldn't want to be the attorney
Jacob Paulsen: who's got to go fight the FOID card in Illinois. That would be a tough battle.
Riley Bowman: Let's also talk about Senate Bill 1220 this one takes an already existing misdemeanor
Riley Bowman: it says in the reporting on this into a rights stripping
Riley Bowman: it takes it to a rights stripping level so like typically a misdemeanor charge
Riley Bowman: there can be some exceptions particularly where
Riley Bowman: maybe a DUI or domestic violence misdemeanor could qualify.
Riley Bowman: But in California, basically, Senate Bill 1220, the intent is to make what is
Riley Bowman: already a misdemeanor crime in California, which is tampering with,
Riley Bowman: removing, stripping away.
Jacob Paulsen: It's specifically someone who's possessing, selling, transferring,
Jacob Paulsen: or otherwise dealing with a firearm that has had its identifying marks or serial number altered.
Riley Bowman: Okay. So you're – I'm just saying if somebody – Possessing
Jacob Paulsen: It would be.
Riley Bowman: Enough. Gotcha. Okay. Fair enough. But I'm just trying to keep this simple that
Riley Bowman: I was thinking more simplistically. You can expand on it. That's fine.
Riley Bowman: I'm just saying that somebody does something with a serial number or some other
Riley Bowman: identifying marker on a firearm, you know, hey, we already know that's illegal.
Riley Bowman: It's illegal on the federal level too, right?
Jacob Paulsen: Yes.
Riley Bowman: But this, the bill, the intent is anybody that, as you said,
Riley Bowman: sells, transfers, whatever, possesses a firearm that does not have its serial
Riley Bowman: number or has had it stripped or removed,
Riley Bowman: that is a misdemeanor that will then automatically make them eligible from possessing
Riley Bowman: or buying firearms for 10 years minimum. them.
Jacob Paulsen: And it still remains a misdemeanor. It's not like they made it a felony.
Jacob Paulsen: They're saying, hey, no, we're going to leave the... It's still a misdemeanor
Jacob Paulsen: for all other reasons or purposes, but it will have this added effect of removing
Jacob Paulsen: this right from you for 10 years.
Riley Bowman: I think this is another interesting one. There's a part of me that's like, well, why? Okay.
Riley Bowman: Why is that... Because I don't know...
Riley Bowman: What's the problem we're trying to solve here? Because because typically someone that's
Riley Bowman: Intent on committing a crime is just going to, you know, like it's what criminals
Riley Bowman: do. They commit crimes, right?
Riley Bowman: So if it's already illegal, then like people will probably just still,
Riley Bowman: you know, like whatever, right?
Riley Bowman: And if you take away their rights for 10 years, their firearm rights,
Riley Bowman: they'll probably just find a way to still own a firearm anyway, right?
Jacob Paulsen: Yeah, it seems silly to me.
Riley Bowman: So that's my point. It's like, what is the point to this legislation? Yeah.
Riley Bowman: But the other thing here that's rather fascinating is I think this is one that
Riley Bowman: definitely could be challenged,
Riley Bowman: you know, at the court level as far as like does a relatively simple misdemeanor
Riley Bowman: crime such as this become something that they can strip your Second Amendment
Riley Bowman: rights away for 10 years?
Jacob Paulsen: Yeah, probably not. And I think there's some other factors here that will play into this.
Jacob Paulsen: In fact, today we're going to talk about ghost guns. I think it's on our agenda.
Jacob Paulsen: But I think that there's obviously a distinction here, and this is important
Jacob Paulsen: to distinguish between a gun that never had a serial number or identifying marking,
Jacob Paulsen: because I built it myself versus a gun that had one and it's been removed.
Jacob Paulsen: It's been stripped, demolished, filed down, obliterated.
Jacob Paulsen: And this law is addressing that. It's addressing the removal of or the stripping
Jacob Paulsen: of identifying marks. So I think that's –,
Jacob Paulsen: probably in this law's benefit relative to its constitutionality.
Jacob Paulsen: Because we definitely have an established legal system around the idea that,
Jacob Paulsen: manufactured guns have to be identified, have to be serialized.
Jacob Paulsen: And so to suggest then that after they've gone into the marketplace,
Jacob Paulsen: people can just remove those.
Jacob Paulsen: Yeah, I don't know. But to your point, it's a misdemeanor. It would have made
Jacob Paulsen: more sense to me if they just made this a felony.
Jacob Paulsen: Because at least then there's some added incentive to not break this law.
Jacob Paulsen: Like, well, crap, another felony charge. That's not ideal for me.
Jacob Paulsen: You know, it's more prison time, but it's like, okay, so now I can't have guns
Jacob Paulsen: for 10 years? Like, I'm a criminal, bro.
Riley Bowman: Yeah. Yeah. So that's an interesting one.
Riley Bowman: And then finally, Assembly Bill 1743. This one you did a little bit of digging
Riley Bowman: into, and it's kind of interesting.
Riley Bowman: I mean, all of these are interesting and dumb and frustrating.
Riley Bowman: But this has to do with expanding the state's firearm owner's data sharing framework.
Riley Bowman: This I'm quoting directly from NRAILA.
Riley Bowman: By increasing access to information maintained in California's automated firearm
Riley Bowman: system and related databases.
Riley Bowman: And NRAILA makes a good point here. And this is, I think, very valid and should
Riley Bowman: be something that's on everyone's minds in light of recent...
Riley Bowman: Database-based challenges or issues that California has had as far as protecting
Riley Bowman: gun owners' private information and data, right?
Riley Bowman: Because they had that whole snafu where they released, like,
Riley Bowman: everybody's concealed carry records to people that should have had it.
Jacob Paulsen: I personally think that is irrelevant to this question at hand.
Jacob Paulsen: Because the database existed. It still exists.
Jacob Paulsen: So the state's ability to keep the data in that database secure is unimpacted,
Jacob Paulsen: is irrelevant to this new legislation.
Riley Bowman: That's fair.
Jacob Paulsen: But I love that the NRA is ready to bring that up. And it is valid for us to
Jacob Paulsen: remember that California does not have a track record of doing a good job of protecting this data.
Jacob Paulsen: But I don't know what it has to do with this. This law is not creating a database
Jacob Paulsen: that didn't exist before.
Jacob Paulsen: It's simply saying, we're going to expand who can request info from that database.
Riley Bowman: Well,
Riley Bowman: I think that's still part of the discussion, because it's like...
Riley Bowman: You're giving information to a broader array of people or institutions. Sure.
Riley Bowman: And then so it's like, how do I know that my information is going to be protected?
Riley Bowman: And now we're putting it, you know, we're making it possible where it's in the
Riley Bowman: hands of more and more people. What are they doing with that data?
Riley Bowman: What is the actual data they're getting their hands on?
Jacob Paulsen: That's the point. I disagree completely. And I'm not saying I'm in favor of
Jacob Paulsen: this legislation, not at all.
Jacob Paulsen: I'm saying that the two things are unrelated because the data we're talking
Jacob Paulsen: about in this legislation is specifically the database of guns gathered from crime scenes.
Riley Bowman: Okay.
Jacob Paulsen: So this is not like, hey, we're going to give access to who has concealed carry permits to more people.
Jacob Paulsen: This legislation is specifically about data gathered from crime scene gathered
Jacob Paulsen: – assuming I'm reading it properly and I'm happy to be corrected.
Jacob Paulsen: But based on the research I did, we're talking about crime scene guns,
Jacob Paulsen: data collected from that that gets distributed to the DOJ and is also held by,
Jacob Paulsen: the California Department of Justice. And that database, which has analysis
Jacob Paulsen: done on those guns, we're saying, hey, we want to make it so that more people,
Jacob Paulsen: some specific people, can access that data.
Jacob Paulsen: So I don't think it really expands a privacy concern unless you're like,
Jacob Paulsen: man, crap, I don't want everybody to know about the guns I left at the crime
Jacob Paulsen: scene based on how I'm reading it.
Riley Bowman: Now we're getting to the meat of it, and that's why I'm asking the questions,
Riley Bowman: because these are relevant questions to ask.
Riley Bowman: And to help understand better, what is this actually doing as a new statute
Riley Bowman: on the books or soon to be probably on the books, right? Right.
Riley Bowman: So, yep, reading right from it here has to do with firearms that have been reported,
Riley Bowman: stolen, lost, found, recovered, held for safekeeping, surrendered,
Riley Bowman: relinquished, or under observation. I don't know what that means,
Jacob Paulsen: But... I would think of it this way. The California Department of Justice has
Jacob Paulsen: databases in sync with the ATF databases.
Jacob Paulsen: So the idea of firearm registration at a national level is not a thing,
Jacob Paulsen: right? But the ATF does, with authority, currently maintain certain databases
Jacob Paulsen: of guns. But it's not like all guns.
Jacob Paulsen: It's certain databases. Like here's the database of guns that have been reported stolen.
Jacob Paulsen: Here's the database of guns that have been recovered from crime scenes.
Jacob Paulsen: Here's the database of whatever.
Jacob Paulsen: They kind of have these unique lists as part of their tracing department.
Jacob Paulsen: So California Department of Justice has kind of a mirrored image list of databases
Jacob Paulsen: that they maintain for their state.
Jacob Paulsen: And that's the data we're talking about so yeah to your point it's these different
Jacob Paulsen: you know list of what guns have
Jacob Paulsen: been stolen list of what guns have been recovered those kinds of things.
Riley Bowman: As you dig down further into the bill, there are some data points that is referencing,
Riley Bowman: you know, basically firearms dealer inspections as well as ammunition vendor
Riley Bowman: inspections and some of the information specific to those dealers and or vendors.
Riley Bowman: And maybe some of those people might have concerns about, you know, that.
Jacob Paulsen: That would be valid. I think this legislation is bad. And to kind of finish
Jacob Paulsen: the half of this too, because we're talking about, well, this bill would expand
Jacob Paulsen: who has access. Well, who is it expanding it to?
Jacob Paulsen: Right. And I think that's the valid big question. And the answer is mostly higher
Jacob Paulsen: levels, higher institutes of education. So universities, like University of
Jacob Paulsen: California and California State University are specifically named.
Jacob Paulsen: And it talks about other publicly funded higher, whatever, education, something, something.
Jacob Paulsen: So that's the target here. It's like how I see it as this, I see it as previously
Jacob Paulsen: there would have been a legal challenge to us sharing this data to universities
Jacob Paulsen: so they could conduct research.
Jacob Paulsen: And we're trying to pass a bill to remove that barrier so we can provide this
Jacob Paulsen: data to these organizations that want to conduct research on the data.
Jacob Paulsen: Is that a good thing? No, it's not a good thing.
Riley Bowman: Right.
Jacob Paulsen: But that's,
Jacob Paulsen: I just don't want us to see it for more than what it is.
Riley Bowman: Good points. All right. Well, those are three bills we mentioned that are on
Riley Bowman: Governor Newsom's desk.
Riley Bowman: And if you'd like to do your part and contact the governor's office to let them
Riley Bowman: know that you are either for or against these, I imagine most people probably are against.
Riley Bowman: You know, that's always what you should do. We should always be active participants
Riley Bowman: in our governmental processes.
Riley Bowman: Let's move on to a story from, a story article.
Riley Bowman: It's actually basically an amalgamation of a bunch of different updates,
Riley Bowman: judicial updates in different cases that are pending and whatnot, on thegunmag.com.
Riley Bowman: And specifically, we're going to highlight a couple of things here that we thought
Riley Bowman: you'd want to know about.
Riley Bowman: Something out of New York and something for the Supreme Court.
Riley Bowman: So let's talk about the New York thing we've got the Second Amendment Foundation
Riley Bowman: the NRA and Firearms Policy Coalition they're involved as part of a lawsuit
Riley Bowman: they're firing it's called Firing Pin LLC versus James of course James is
Riley Bowman: their attorney general there Leticia James
Riley Bowman: so they got an ongoing lawsuit with the it's a challenge to the New York state ban on convertible
Jacob Paulsen: Pistols yeah so I think there's some foundational info yeah so,
Jacob Paulsen: New York's not the first state to basically attempt to ban Glocks.
Jacob Paulsen: And California and Maryland come to mind as well.
Jacob Paulsen: So these states have laws that they don't say Glock, but they describe Glocks,
Jacob Paulsen: or they describe the attributes about a Glock that they think make it scary
Jacob Paulsen: and concerning, specifically that they can be converted into.
Jacob Paulsen: Readily converted or some language like that, into fully automatic machine guns.
Jacob Paulsen: They're talking about the Glock switch, right? For some long period of time,
Jacob Paulsen: gun grabbers are losing their mind about the Glock switch, something that is
Jacob Paulsen: a felony to possess or have because it just makes it too easy to convert these guns into machine guns.
Jacob Paulsen: So these states have gone out of their way to write legislation that effectively bans them.
Jacob Paulsen: And that's the foundational element.
Jacob Paulsen: That builds on where we're going. So now someone steps in and files suit against New York.
Jacob Paulsen: There's also pending lawsuits against California, Maryland.
Jacob Paulsen: So you kind of have – this is happening in three different places.
Jacob Paulsen: I know the NRA is involved in I think all three of these lawsuits.
Jacob Paulsen: I think other organizations are tacked on to each one.
Jacob Paulsen: So yeah, I think the question to kind of bring it back, there's two issues with
Jacob Paulsen: this lawsuit. One is this idea of readily convertible.
Jacob Paulsen: Like all guns can be converted into full auto.
Jacob Paulsen: Right? Like, it's just a question of like, well, how hard is it?
Jacob Paulsen: And this idea of readily convertible is too arbitrary.
Jacob Paulsen: It's like, well, that's not clear or specific. So I think we could see a ruling
Jacob Paulsen: come back that just says, this is too vague.
Jacob Paulsen: Like, be more specific. And so injunction until legislature makes it more specific.
Jacob Paulsen: So that's one possibility. That's one possible outcome.
Jacob Paulsen: But I think the other legal challenge to this is this idea of our previous Supreme
Jacob Paulsen: Court decisions and made it clear that you can't ban something that is in wide
Jacob Paulsen: common use among the citizenry.
Jacob Paulsen: And so to suggest that the guns they're describing, namely Glocks,
Jacob Paulsen: are not in wide common use would be utterly, you might as well hit your head
Jacob Paulsen: against a wall. I mean, it's just silly stupid.
Riley Bowman: Can you imagine a gun that isn't, or that is more in common use than a Glock, right?
Jacob Paulsen: It's like that. It is the most common gun. Well, it's probably the most common,
Jacob Paulsen: certainly the most common handgun platform in America.
Jacob Paulsen: So those are like the big questions here that would seem to play in favor of
Jacob Paulsen: gun rights when this comes into a court.
Jacob Paulsen: But again, we're going to see this come into three different district courts,
Jacob Paulsen: and that will lead to potentially a district split if we see different decisions from those over time.
Riley Bowman: So that's one we're keeping an eye on. All right. That'll be interesting to see how that plays out.
Riley Bowman: The other main thing that we want to make you aware of is some Supreme Court
Riley Bowman: cases, Supreme Court of the U.S.
Riley Bowman: They're currently in recess right now but they have a couple of big ones that
Riley Bowman: they're taking up in their next term and specifically Veramontes vs.
Riley Bowman: Cook County which has been combined that's out of the 7th Circuit and that's
Riley Bowman: been combined with the Grant vs.
Riley Bowman: Higgins case out of the 2nd Circuit they're on the same, very similar issues
Riley Bowman: which is dealing with AR-15s and similar semi-automatic firearms rifles
Riley Bowman: and the Supreme Court has indicated they are going to hear those cases.
Riley Bowman: They're going to hear them for argument in the next term. That could be as soon as October.
Riley Bowman: We're almost at the end of August here, so that could be, you know,
Riley Bowman: the reporting here is suggesting there has not been an argument date yet set,
Riley Bowman: but that they will hear those cases argued.
Riley Bowman: It'll be a one-hour argument session or hearing, and that could be as soon as
Riley Bowman: October, which is kind of exciting.
Jacob Paulsen: Yeah, I have two comments on this one. One is just to clarify some timeline.
Jacob Paulsen: Hearing arguments will be very important because we'll be able to kind of guess
Jacob Paulsen: what the outcome of the case will be based on the arguments we hear from both sides.
Jacob Paulsen: Well, in this case, really from four sides because you have two different cases.
Jacob Paulsen: So you have two sets of plaintiffs and two sets of defendants. Thank you.
Jacob Paulsen: But anyway, so from those arguments, we'll kind of be like, oh,
Jacob Paulsen: yeah, okay, these are the arguments that were made, and we can decide,
Jacob Paulsen: you know, based on our own opinions, how much water we think they hold.
Riley Bowman: It's also the questions that the justices ask.
Jacob Paulsen: Yes. Yeah, yeah. What are they interested in knowing?
Riley Bowman: It really kind of gives you some insight as far as where their mind is at on the issues.
Jacob Paulsen: But I think it is worth clarifying that we probably should not expect a decision
Jacob Paulsen: from the Supreme Court until probably about a year from now would be like a decent guesstimate.
Riley Bowman: Typically, we see arguments in the fall or late fall, and there seems to be
Riley Bowman: kind of like late May and through June sort of like the hot bed for output when
Riley Bowman: you start seeing some of those come out.
Jacob Paulsen: So we'll see. But just to temper expectations, this also comes – I think we're going to win this one.
Jacob Paulsen: For me, this one's a slam dunk. There's certainly some of these you're like,
Jacob Paulsen: I mean, I'm not sure because whatever.
Jacob Paulsen: But this is one of those where it's like I cannot imagine how we could lose this.
Jacob Paulsen: Yeah. Like, you know, we're talking about the most common rifle in America. Yeah.
Jacob Paulsen: Like, it is extremely widely in public use by the citizenry,
Jacob Paulsen: so that's a non-question.
Jacob Paulsen: There's no historical analogs, nothing even remotely approaching one.
Jacob Paulsen: The district court decisions where we've lost this case, where AR-15 bans have
Jacob Paulsen: been upheld, You go back and look at those decisions, and they're decisions
Jacob Paulsen: that basically chose to ignore previous U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
Jacob Paulsen: That's the only way they arrived at the decision to uphold those bans.
Jacob Paulsen: So now that the U.S. Supreme Court has to weigh against their own previous decisions,
Jacob Paulsen: I just see no world where we can lose.
Jacob Paulsen: So it's a matter of time, and it's going to clean it up. And this is one of
Jacob Paulsen: the reasons I said earlier that I think we're going to see more and more permit-to-purchase
Jacob Paulsen: schemes, like we were talking about in California, Colorado,
Jacob Paulsen: and other states that are doing things like this, because when this disappears, when the U.S.
Jacob Paulsen: Supreme Court basically says, you can't ban this, I think you're going to see states go, oh.
Jacob Paulsen: Well, okay, then we'll do this. We'll force people to go through an arduous
Jacob Paulsen: process and get training and spend money and their time in order to be able to buy these things.
Jacob Paulsen: Right. So I think it's the inevitability that will come out of this case.
Riley Bowman: I agree. I mean, we already know for a fact, like, I mean, Kavanaugh is easy
Riley Bowman: for sure. He's the one that's, you know, for a couple of years now been basically
Riley Bowman: saying, we're going to take up this case.
Jacob Paulsen: Yeah, it's coming.
Riley Bowman: He's been signaling where he stands on that for a while now.
Riley Bowman: And, of course, he was involved in that case out of the 11th
Riley Bowman: Circuit or whatever, whichever circuit he was in years ago. He was involved
Riley Bowman: in a major one on a similar issue way back then.
Riley Bowman: Thomas, for sure. Alito, for sure. Kavanaugh, as I mentioned.
Riley Bowman: Gorsuch, probably, almost certainly.
Riley Bowman: Do you see either Barrett or Chief Justice Roberts maybe coming down on one
Riley Bowman: side or the other on this?
Jacob Paulsen: I don't know. This is a layer deeper than I generally choose to analyze.
Jacob Paulsen: But I think it comes down to...
Jacob Paulsen: We had dissenting opinions in Bruin in 2023, but now Bruin is the law.
Riley Bowman: Well, and even then, though, it was six to three. So all of the,
Riley Bowman: quote-unquote, conservative justices were in favor of Bruin.
Jacob Paulsen: So I think my point is that even if you dissented then, you now have to accept that that's the deal.
Riley Bowman: I just, I'm bringing up the question because to me, I see this as like the first
Riley Bowman: major test before the court.
Riley Bowman: Yeah, there's been a couple hours since Bruin testing some, you know,
Riley Bowman: I call smaller issues. I think this AR-15 or similar rifle issue is a big, big, big issue.
Riley Bowman: Because again, we just talked about how in common use Galaxar nationwide.
Riley Bowman: AR-15s are the most common rifle. I mean, as far as, like, type, right?
Riley Bowman: So I see this as, like, the first major test since Bruin.
Riley Bowman: I suspect it'll be a 6-3 split.
Riley Bowman: But it'll be interesting to see if any of the justices rethink where they are at since Bruin.
Jacob Paulsen: Yeah. I think the best way to think of this is in the United States,
Jacob Paulsen: we have been taking the Second Amendment over the last 20 years,
Jacob Paulsen: and we have been building an extraordinarily massive foundation underneath it.
Jacob Paulsen: And we're now in a position to go build the house on top of the foundation.
Jacob Paulsen: And that's what you're seeing. Like, like Heller, McDonald, Heller,
Jacob Paulsen: Bruin, like this established a foundation that is so solid, that is so uncrackable.
Jacob Paulsen: And now we're building the house with all these other lawsuits.
Jacob Paulsen: And it's like, on this foundation, we can't lose.
Riley Bowman: Cool. We'll be watching those cases, especially that Viramonte's case. All right.
Riley Bowman: Concealed Carry Gun Tools. Jacob, let's talk a little bit more in depth about
Riley Bowman: our first episode sponsor, our own mobile app, which, by the way,
Riley Bowman: has existed in some form since 2016. Yeah. Ten plus years now. Wow.
Riley Bowman: Yeah. And free since 2016. Ad-free, money-free, cost-free. I mean, it's not for us, but. No.
Jacob Paulsen: Yeah, no. I think people would vomit a little bit if they knew how much money we spent on it.
Riley Bowman: Tell people why they should make sure they have the Concealed Carry Gun Tools app on their phones.
Jacob Paulsen: Concealed Carry Gun Tools app. It's so full of cool stuff. For one,
Jacob Paulsen: you could be listening to this podcast right now in there for all we know.
Jacob Paulsen: So maybe you download the app and you're listening to us talk.
Jacob Paulsen: So you can access all podcast episodes and all articles. Just kind of everything
Jacob Paulsen: in our Learn Hub is there. So all articles, all podcasts.
Jacob Paulsen: You can see it all there. You can play, et cetera. Additionally,
Jacob Paulsen: you have what we call the Maps Tools. There's three of them in there.
Jacob Paulsen: So the first map tool is Reciprocity Maps. You can generate Reciprocity Maps
Jacob Paulsen: for any combination of permits you have. We're actually working on an enhancement to that right now.
Jacob Paulsen: I don't want to blow it too much, but it's going to be cool.
Jacob Paulsen: And the second map tool in there is our business directory.
Jacob Paulsen: And it needs some tweaks. We have some big plans for that one that we're going
Jacob Paulsen: to do to improve. But right now you can go in there. If you grant it location
Jacob Paulsen: permissions, it'll see where you are, and it'll show you gun businesses near you.
Jacob Paulsen: Here's gun ranges, gun. And you can filter. You can say, I just want to see
Jacob Paulsen: instructors. I just want to see gun ranges. Or I just want to see gun-free zones.
Jacob Paulsen: We have, I think, something like 80,000 gun-free zones that are logged in there.
Jacob Paulsen: And you can submit them yourself on concealedcarry.com if you want to add one to it.
Jacob Paulsen: I recently added one. That's just about a week ago.
Jacob Paulsen: And then our third map tool that's in there is the state law library.
Jacob Paulsen: And this is probably the most utilized thing inside our mobile app,
Jacob Paulsen: is that you go in there, you can pick any state from the 50 states,
Jacob Paulsen: and it'll pull up a summary of all the gun laws that we track for each state,
Jacob Paulsen: for the state you chose, I suppose.
Jacob Paulsen: And we're pretty comprehensive about that. We're pretty crazy about making it
Jacob Paulsen: accurate. In fact, this week we were contacted by a professor who has written
Jacob Paulsen: some legislation in a state, one of the northern states.
Jacob Paulsen: And he contacted us with a question about what we have in our app relative to a certain statute.
Jacob Paulsen: And we had some back and forth. And basically we both agreed that the way it's
Jacob Paulsen: written is as good as it can be.
Jacob Paulsen: So this app has been downloaded over like 250,000 times. It's currently active
Jacob Paulsen: on I think something like 15,000 phones.
Jacob Paulsen: So it's pretty tested. It's pretty proven. It's very effective.
Jacob Paulsen: And I think that you get a lot out of it.
Riley Bowman: We'd love to see it active on 100,000 phones. So download the Concealed Carry
Riley Bowman: Gun Tools app today. Jacob just told you why you should have it.
Riley Bowman: Go to concealedcarry.com forward slash app.
Jacob Paulsen: And if you already have it downloaded, go rate it. Go give us five stars.
Jacob Paulsen: I think that's going to make a huge difference to make sure other people can
Jacob Paulsen: also enjoy it and find it.
Riley Bowman: Yeah, that's always appreciated for sure. Let's turn our attention now to some
Riley Bowman: pretty significant news out of New Mexico, Jacob.
Riley Bowman: Yeah. So New Mexico, you know, had a seven-day waiting period,
Riley Bowman: you know, this cool-off period for the purchase of a firearm in their state
Riley Bowman: there in the land of enchantment.
Riley Bowman: And that is now, at least within the 10th Circuit, dead.
Riley Bowman: So this is an interesting one, Jacob. So this is what's known as the Ortega v. Grisham case.
Riley Bowman: NRA and the Mountain States Legal Foundation were involved in this, along with NSSF.
Riley Bowman: The law was passed back in 2024. It was challenged almost immediately.
Riley Bowman: And basically a year later, about a year ago now, the Tenth Circuit held that law unconstitutional.
Riley Bowman: It was remanded back to the district court.
Riley Bowman: And this is what's fascinating to me. So basically the 10th Circuit's like,
Riley Bowman: yo, you got this wrong. There's not a historical precedent for a mandatory waiting
Riley Bowman: period on a firearm purchase. Hello, Bruin.
Riley Bowman: And so remands it back to the district court. Hey, get this right.
Riley Bowman: And New Mexico, so the state of New Mexico, arguing that, again,
Riley Bowman: before the district court, basically asked the district to ignore what came
Riley Bowman: down from the 10th Circuit.
Riley Bowman: Like, that just is fascinating to me because, I mean, hello.
Jacob Paulsen: It echoes like a 12-year-old in a courtroom.
Riley Bowman: Yeah.
Jacob Paulsen: Can we just ignore what mom and dad said and just do this anyway?
Riley Bowman: So the district court disagreed with that, saying, no, we've got to abide by
Riley Bowman: what the Tenth Circuit has remanded to us.
Riley Bowman: And so as of now, this is the law of the land for the Tenth Circuit,
Riley Bowman: which includes states like Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming.
Riley Bowman: We have a waiting period in Colorado.
Riley Bowman: Three days. So shouldn't that be rolled up into this?
Jacob Paulsen: I need to go read the decision from the 10th Circuit again, or maybe I've never
Jacob Paulsen: read it. I don't know for sure.
Jacob Paulsen: Because that's the question is sometimes these decisions are very narrow.
Jacob Paulsen: The decision might be written to the effect of a seven-day waiting period is
Jacob Paulsen: unconstitutional. Right.
Jacob Paulsen: In which case, okay.
Riley Bowman: Three days is okay.
Jacob Paulsen: Six days will be fine. Right? Or it might just say waiting periods are unconstitutional.
Jacob Paulsen: But it does create a foundation upon which additional lawsuits can be filed,
Jacob Paulsen: like here in states of Colorado, if we might see.
Jacob Paulsen: Again, I don't know. I wish I was more educated on this one.
Jacob Paulsen: I didn't have time to go read it before we recorded. But I would think it would have implications.
Jacob Paulsen: At very least, I think the implication would be that if someone does go file
Jacob Paulsen: a lawsuit in a state like Colorado, certainly in a state like Colorado,
Jacob Paulsen: since we're part of the same district, that that has a high chance of success.
Jacob Paulsen: Because they'd be like, yeah, we already talked about this.
Riley Bowman: Yeah, exactly.
Jacob Paulsen: But in a different district, I think it still gives you foundation because you
Jacob Paulsen: can reference those arguments and the decision that was written by the 10th District.
Riley Bowman: Or 10th Circuit.
Jacob Paulsen: Thank you, 10th Circuit.
Riley Bowman: Yeah. So anyway, we'll try to keep posting on that. This actually was news to me. I hadn't heard.
Jacob Paulsen: Well, I think it happened like today or something.
Riley Bowman: Yeah, but I hadn't really heard much about this even leading up to today.
Riley Bowman: So we'll probably come back to this with some further updates.
Riley Bowman: August 28th. Particularly as it relates to other states within the 10th Circuit.
Riley Bowman: Because, again, that's going to be very – because I don't think – let's see,
Riley Bowman: Kansas, Oklahoma, Utah.
Riley Bowman: Yeah, none of the other states have a waiting period on purchases.
Riley Bowman: It was just New Mexico and Colorado within the 10th Circuit.
Riley Bowman: So we'll see where that goes and try to provide an update.
Riley Bowman: Now, let's talk about an article that you wrote, Jacob,
Riley Bowman: updating folks on how the new approach, if you will, that DOJ is taking towards
Riley Bowman: possession of or carrying of a firearm on post office property.
Jacob Paulsen: Yeah. This is another one of those where we've yet to see the implications of this.
Jacob Paulsen: But the short of it is, I don't know, I think we've got to back this up a minute.
Jacob Paulsen: So federal law, in fact, I'll see if I can tell you the exact, 18 U.S.C.
Jacob Paulsen: Section 930, subsection A,
Jacob Paulsen: okay, makes it a federal crime to possess a firearm in a federal facility.
Jacob Paulsen: However, subsection D number three exempts, quote, the lawful carrying of firearms
Jacob Paulsen: or other dangerous weapons in a federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.
Jacob Paulsen: So you have this law, this U.S. code that says you can't have a firearm in a
Jacob Paulsen: federal facility unless it's a part of hunting or other lawful purposes.
Jacob Paulsen: Other lawful purposes is a little bit open-ended. I mean, it isn't to me.
Jacob Paulsen: To me, it's like super clear. But apparently it's confusing to some.
Jacob Paulsen: And it was under that guise that the U.S. Postal Service had their own little
Jacob Paulsen: whatever deal. What was it?
Jacob Paulsen: Rule 39 CFR Section 232 Subsection 1 Letter I that banned firearms on postal
Jacob Paulsen: property except for official purposes. Yeah.
Jacob Paulsen: Okay, and that rule was posted in 1988. And so basically, the Department of Justice has said, hey.
Jacob Paulsen: This rule is illegal because, I mean, in 1988, maybe you could argue that just
Jacob Paulsen: having a gun on you for self-defense was not a lawful purpose.
Jacob Paulsen: Maybe. Like that could pass some muster.
Riley Bowman: It was a different world then.
Jacob Paulsen: Completely different world. But now that we've had McDonald and Heller and Bruin,
Jacob Paulsen: there's no world you could suggest that me stuffing a gun down my pants and
Jacob Paulsen: walking into a post office is anything other than a lawful purpose.
Jacob Paulsen: And so with that in mind, then if that's a lawful thing, like me just choosing
Jacob Paulsen: to carry a gun for self-defense is lawful, then without question, the U.S.
Jacob Paulsen: Postal Service does not have the authority to keep me from taking it into a post office.
Jacob Paulsen: And that's what the Department of Justice said. Now, so that's done. It's over.
Jacob Paulsen: The post office has gone to the effort of removing the code from their site,
Jacob Paulsen: all the things. It's take your gun into the post office. Proceed. Have a good time.
Jacob Paulsen: However, there's still a couple of things. One, the Department of Justice clarified
Jacob Paulsen: that we're talking about post offices that are open to the public.
Jacob Paulsen: So if there's some post office center where only employees can go and they sort
Jacob Paulsen: mail and there's no front-end lobby where you can walk in with a package,
Jacob Paulsen: you don't have a right to just walk in there with guns.
Jacob Paulsen: That's not what they're saying because that's not open to the public.
Riley Bowman: We're talking similar to...
Riley Bowman: You know, any old, any other business, right? You know, like that public can
Riley Bowman: just walk in because they, because they have a lawful purpose to go there for.
Riley Bowman: Uh, if it was a business, a store, you go somewhere to buy something,
Riley Bowman: right? So you, you know, you walk in, even if it's private property.
Riley Bowman: Uh, I mean, yeah, they can do certain things. So, you know, restrict,
Riley Bowman: you know, it's their property, but we're talking open to public.
Riley Bowman: It's not like it's a restrictive, it's not ticketed.
Jacob Paulsen: It's not like I can go cruise into Fort Knox.
Riley Bowman: You're not having to pay to get in.
Jacob Paulsen: You're It's not secure.
Riley Bowman: Yeah, exactly.
Jacob Paulsen: Now, this is why I say we've yet to see the implication because this DOJ decision
Jacob Paulsen: would suggest to me that then, by extension, I should be able to carry my gun
Jacob Paulsen: into a building in a national park,
Jacob Paulsen: or any building open to the public at the federal center that we have or a VA hospital or...
Jacob Paulsen: Any federal facility that's open to the public, based on the argument that DOJ
Jacob Paulsen: has made, should be open to me and my gun.
Jacob Paulsen: If it's not a secure facility and it's open to the public, then I would say
Jacob Paulsen: that this argument suggests I could carry there too.
Riley Bowman: No, one of the things that comes to mind that I think is a big one is
Riley Bowman: VA hospitals, that kind of stuff. There's one that's not too far from where I live.
Riley Bowman: Not a VA hospital, but it's a doctor's office. It's a VA facility.
Riley Bowman: You know, guys go there for, and gals, for, you know, like, it's just a doctor's office, right?
Riley Bowman: Sure, sure. And the parking lot, like, at the entrance of the parking lot has
Riley Bowman: pretty large, obnoxious signage, making sure you know,
Riley Bowman: on this property, we're not talking about in the building, we're talking you
Riley Bowman: pull into that parking lot, guns are a no-no.
Riley Bowman: And, like, that's always been fascinating to me.
Jacob Paulsen: There's a flock camera right there looking right at us.
Riley Bowman: Like it's always been, I'm like, really? Like why, why do we got to be so,
Riley Bowman: you know, hard, hard nosed about this kind of thing? You know, like
Jacob Paulsen: Uncle Sam taught you to carry a gun, taught you to shoot the gun,
Jacob Paulsen: authorized you to kill people with the gun.
Jacob Paulsen: And now you cannot bring guns on Uncle Sam's property to get treated for the
Jacob Paulsen: injury you occurred when you were shooting the people with the guns we trained you to use.
Riley Bowman: Right. It would be one thing. Maybe if they're like, don't bring it in the building,
Riley Bowman: but hey, secure it in your car. Right. You know, like, but like to make such
Riley Bowman: a point about like, don't even come in this parking lot.
Riley Bowman: So, yeah, I'm with you, Jacob. I think this should call into question.
Riley Bowman: And DOJ hasn't said anything about those types of situations.
Riley Bowman: But it should call into question those other situations.
Jacob Paulsen: I think it sets a precedent that someone needs to go test. Yeah.
Jacob Paulsen: I have found that I'm happier in life when I'm not a guinea pig for these kinds of things.
Jacob Paulsen: But I appreciate those who choose to be guinea pigs and go put these things
Jacob Paulsen: to the test. So, you know, we support you. Yeah.
Riley Bowman: Good stuff. By the way, if you guys want to read anything we're talking about,
Riley Bowman: links for the stories, articles, whatnot that we're sharing in this podcast,
Riley Bowman: they're included in the show notes.
Riley Bowman: We do our best to include those links as much as possible. This was one that
Riley Bowman: Jacob wrote. It's published on concealedcarry.com. You can go read the whole
Riley Bowman: thing for yourself if you want to get more into the nuts and bolts yourself.
Riley Bowman: Let's go to yet another one that you wrote, Jacob.
Riley Bowman: Federal judge rules Biden-era ghost gun restrictions unconstitutional.
Jacob Paulsen: Yeah, so here's what happens. During the Biden administration,
Jacob Paulsen: the ATF changes, without any piece of legislation, without any judicial interference,
Jacob Paulsen: just presumably under the direction of the Biden administration.
Riley Bowman: Right.
Jacob Paulsen: The ATF changes the definitions by which they determine what is and what is not a gun.
Jacob Paulsen: To include, where previously it did not include, partially finished frames or receivers.
Jacob Paulsen: The thinking being, you know, basically we're worried about 80% lowers.
Jacob Paulsen: Like for those of you who need some definitions, right? Like,
Jacob Paulsen: you know, the Palmer 80 guys that were buying partially finished guns and finishing them themselves.
Jacob Paulsen: That that was legal but oh my gosh like it was so scary to to the to the anti-gunners just terrifying
Jacob Paulsen: so etf says okay we're gonna change the rule we're now going to define anything
Jacob Paulsen: that can be readily you know finished or converted into,
Jacob Paulsen: a receiver to or frame,
Jacob Paulsen: to also be a gun and so these things are now regulated like guns so no act of congress no,
Jacob Paulsen: court decision no supreme not just boom we just decided,
Jacob Paulsen: so now previously then a lawsuit is filed and it goes all the way up to the
Jacob Paulsen: US Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court does not rule that.
Jacob Paulsen: Unfinished receivers are not guns. The Supreme Court just rules that the ATF
Jacob Paulsen: did not have the authority to change that rule.
Jacob Paulsen: The ruling from the Supreme Court... The process was wrong. Correct.
Jacob Paulsen: The Supreme Court said, hey, you can't do this. You can't make this decision
Jacob Paulsen: unilaterally, on your own, willy-nilly.
Jacob Paulsen: ATF lacks the authority to make that decision.
Jacob Paulsen: So that was the U.S. Supreme Court decision that was made. Now fast forward
Jacob Paulsen: to this month, and that same case that the U.S.
Jacob Paulsen: Supreme Court said, you don't have the authority, gets sent back down,
Jacob Paulsen: and now in its current position in the court proceedings, the current court
Jacob Paulsen: has made the ruling that that was, in fact, unconstitutional.
Jacob Paulsen: So before it was like ATF acted outside of its authority, and now this new ruling
Jacob Paulsen: is not only did the ATF act outside of its authority, but the rule that they
Jacob Paulsen: created was just flat out not constitutional,
Jacob Paulsen: because there's no historical analog for not letting people manufacture their
Jacob Paulsen: own guns, whether they came from kits or not.
Jacob Paulsen: That's crazy asinine.
Jacob Paulsen: And there's no demonstrative risk to public safety by allowing it.
Jacob Paulsen: So therefore, unconstitutional. Yep.
Riley Bowman: Again, we're seeing the downstream effects of Bruin just continues to really shine for us.
Riley Bowman: In almost all of these battles is just so, so amazing to see how impactful that
Riley Bowman: is and will continue to be.
Riley Bowman: I thought it was interesting how Justice O'Connor, or judge,
Riley Bowman: actually, I think it's a district court, so I believe he is referred to as a judge.
Riley Bowman: He was picking at some of the words and definitions and things in the ATF's rule.
Riley Bowman: And there's some pretty interesting stuff there if you want to go read what he wrote about that.
Riley Bowman: It's a good read. So I'm going to, just due to time, I'm going to keep us moving along here.
Riley Bowman: Again, you can see this article for yourself, Jacob wrote on concealedcarry.com.
Riley Bowman: All right, so here we go. This is the next story has to do with suppressors.
Jacob Paulsen: And short barrel rifles and short barrel shotguns.
Riley Bowman: Yep, yep. So NFA, all right. So big news, everyone knows, about two weeks ago
Riley Bowman: now, actually, almost exactly two weeks, I think it was like two weeks ago yesterday,
Riley Bowman: big rolling out of the North District of Texas about the NFA.
Riley Bowman: So we were expecting this. We were expecting once Congress removed the $200
Riley Bowman: tax associated with suppressors, short-barrel rifles, short-barrel shotguns,
Riley Bowman: For that tax stamp, that it was only a matter of time.
Riley Bowman: Obviously, it was going to be challenged and likely ruled unconstitutional.
Riley Bowman: And so because Congress has the power to tax but now there's no longer a tax
Riley Bowman: and there's no benefit the government's receiving because of that.
Riley Bowman: There's no reason for it to have to therefore monitor or ensure a tax is being collected.
Riley Bowman: That's the whole premise of the NFA from the get-go which was challenged,
Riley Bowman: I think it was like the Salisbury case or it started with an S.
Riley Bowman: Way back in the 30s after the NFA was first passed, basically said,
Riley Bowman: nope, Congress has the right to to tax, raise revenue to tax.
Riley Bowman: This was done through essentially commerce and tax taxing. Right.
Riley Bowman: And so therefore, the NFA is allowed to stand because we got to have paperwork
Riley Bowman: and fingerprinting and all that stuff to make sure people are actually paying the tax.
Riley Bowman: So anyway, that tax is gone. Now, as soon as this ruling came out of the North
Riley Bowman: District of Texas, people were like, woohoo, NFA is dead, NFA is dead.
Riley Bowman: And, you know, big news was you had, oh, what's his name, Brandon? Herrera.
Riley Bowman: Herrera, right? and one other dude go right into a silencer shop store
Riley Bowman: Just after midnight once the initial seven-day conjunction expired.
Riley Bowman: Thank you. You're feeling all the words that are slipping my mind here.
Riley Bowman: And they bought and walked out of the store that night with their suppressors
Riley Bowman: just as a test and as a validation of this ruling, which applies to those who
Riley Bowman: are members of, what is it, the...
Jacob Paulsen: Well, it applies to plaintiffs, members of plaintiffs, and customers of plaintiffs.
Riley Bowman: Right. And so we got the, I think the NRA was part of it, the Second Amendment
Riley Bowman: Foundation was part of it.
Jacob Paulsen: So the NRA, yeah, so...
Riley Bowman: No, not the NRA.
Jacob Paulsen: It was not NRA. It was like a local state NRA association. There you go.
Riley Bowman: I was actually meaning to say firearms policy coalition. It's just we've been
Riley Bowman: talking about NRA a bunch.
Jacob Paulsen: GOA.
Riley Bowman: GOA was part of it.
Jacob Paulsen: Palmetto State Armory.
Riley Bowman: Second Amendment Foundation I mentioned. Palmetto State Armory, that's right.
Jacob Paulsen: Second Amendment Foundation was not part of it.
Riley Bowman: Silencer Shop itself. I thought they were.
Jacob Paulsen: No, they have a separate case that's similar that they're part of,
Jacob Paulsen: but not this case. Thank you for getting me straight. In a different district.
Riley Bowman: It's hard for me to remember to keep all this stuff straight.
Jacob Paulsen: They're all listed in the article.
Riley Bowman: Yeah, that I wrote. But I can write something and forget about it.
Jacob Paulsen: You and I both wrote articles about this one. It's kind of ironic.
Riley Bowman: Yeah. Well, you were kind of just reporting about it and sort of the happenstance around it.
Jacob Paulsen: You added some thoughts.
Riley Bowman: That's what I wanted to talk about here today. This is my whole thing.
Jacob Paulsen: Well, before you get there, let me clarify. So I just want to establish some clear foundation here.
Jacob Paulsen: So the big, beautiful bill that was passed last year removed the $200 tax.
Jacob Paulsen: So lawsuits get filed to say without that tax, the law is now unconstitutional as it stands.
Jacob Paulsen: This particular case which the plaintiffs we just mentioned Silencer Shop,
Jacob Paulsen: Palma State Armory GOA and FPC I think
Jacob Paulsen: is the list and then some local organizations, those are the big ones,
Jacob Paulsen: filed a lawsuit they win this lawsuit there's an injunction given,
Jacob Paulsen: or there's basically a stay so what the court does is it says yep this is the
Jacob Paulsen: ruling but it doesn't my ruling is not going to go into effect for seven days
Jacob Paulsen: because I want to allow seven days for the DOJ to appeal the ruling.
Jacob Paulsen: Because if they appeal it, then we'll stay the injunction.
Jacob Paulsen: So seven days goes, the DOJ does not contest, does not appeal.
Jacob Paulsen: And so the injunction then goes into effect, saying the NFA is basically no
Jacob Paulsen: longer, at least the parts of the NFA, the required registration in order for
Jacob Paulsen: these three types of products is no longer constitutional.
Jacob Paulsen: But that's only for those plaintiffs and their members and customers.
Riley Bowman: Okay yeah thank you
Jacob Paulsen: I have more thoughts, but I assume you're going to go there, so we're good.
Riley Bowman: Yeah, no. I was going to also clarify a couple other things, right?
Riley Bowman: One is also that this is only going to be applicable to you if you're in a state
Riley Bowman: where suppressors are legal to possess or SBRs, SBSs.
Riley Bowman: Specifically on the issue of suppressors, for instance, there's a number of
Riley Bowman: states where they're just out.
Riley Bowman: And folks who live in these states, you already know this, right?
Riley Bowman: There's no mechanism for you to get a suppressor anyway in places like California,
Riley Bowman: Illinois, New York, Massachusetts, I think Delaware, Hawaii.
Jacob Paulsen: Well, there's been some confusion about states where the state law specifies
Jacob Paulsen: that it's lawful as long as you go through the NFA registration process.
Riley Bowman: Oh, that's the next category. Yeah, right. And that's us, actually, here in Colorado.
Jacob Paulsen: Yeah, we're in that category.
Riley Bowman: Right, Colorado, some other examples, you know, common examples,
Riley Bowman: Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Montana. That's a few.
Jacob Paulsen: A large number of states like that.
Riley Bowman: There are quite a few. Yeah. So a number of states basically say,
Riley Bowman: it's legal, but only if you have paperwork from the government that says it is.
Riley Bowman: Right? From the federal government. Right. And so, yeah, if I can't apply for a tax stamp.
Jacob Paulsen: Or if I don't have to. For that process.
Riley Bowman: Right. Then that's a problem for me here in Colorado as far as being able to obtain a suppressor.
Jacob Paulsen: Yeah. This is a hurdle that's currently being sorted. Yeah.
Riley Bowman: So it's important for people to understand that as well. Now,
Riley Bowman: if you're in what's, you know, like Silencer Shop is calling these free states,
Riley Bowman: and I would agree, and there's a little map, and you can see it in the article
Riley Bowman: that I published, and it kind of calls out these different categories.
Riley Bowman: So any of these red states that are shown here, then you can presume,
Riley Bowman: as long as you meet one of those plaintiff categories,
Riley Bowman: that you can probably purchase a suppressor without having to go through the
Riley Bowman: tax stamp process, the Form 4 and all that, right? or even have to file a form one.
Riley Bowman: And so if you want to make your own, that is.
Riley Bowman: Now, there's still a lot of questions, and people are asking specifics,
Riley Bowman: and there's dealers that are like, what do we do with this? How do we handle
Riley Bowman: this? What's the process?
Riley Bowman: Is this actually legal? Are we getting our hands slapped by the ATF? And so on and so forth.
Riley Bowman: And that's starting to get sorted out a little bit, but I think it still has
Riley Bowman: a ways to go to really get it sorted out.
Jacob Paulsen: It's definitely pending. Yeah. And I've seen two major efforts to get clarity.
Jacob Paulsen: The first one is from the NSSF, the National Shooting Sports Foundation. Yeah.
Jacob Paulsen: Which is the big trade association for gun dealers, they've sent a request to
Jacob Paulsen: the ATF saying, hey, ATF, figure it out.
Jacob Paulsen: Give us direction. Now, please. And the other one is the attorneys on the case
Jacob Paulsen: that just won their case.
Jacob Paulsen: Dave solicited the court to say, hey, court, you awarded us the injunction.
Jacob Paulsen: And it still is an injunction, technically. There's like another 60 days or
Jacob Paulsen: something that the DOJ could still appeal.
Jacob Paulsen: Right. But you've awarded us this injunction, but now we need you to tell us
Jacob Paulsen: how the plaintiffs can take advantage of the injunction.
Riley Bowman: Exactly.
Jacob Paulsen: Because if I live in one of these free states, Utah, and I walk into...
Jacob Paulsen: I mean, crap, Silencer Co. is based there. If I walk into Silencer Co.
Jacob Paulsen: And I'm like, I want one of those, please, from the new factory outlet store
Jacob Paulsen: maybe, how is Silencer Co. to verify that I'm one of the plaintiffs,
Jacob Paulsen: that I'm a member of the GOA or a customer of Palmetto State Armory or whatever the thing is?
Jacob Paulsen: I mean, I don't know. Like, how would I prove it to them? So you get the point
Jacob Paulsen: where this is the lack of clarity.
Jacob Paulsen: And no one wants to jeopardize their entire livelihood and the livelihood of
Jacob Paulsen: their employees by making a mistake because the ATF is not terribly forgiving.
Jacob Paulsen: Generally, let alone in recent history, they're not forgiving at all.
Riley Bowman: Right. If you break rules as an FFL, as a dealer, that can mean that your license is revoked.
Jacob Paulsen: Done. You go to jail.
Riley Bowman: And then you're out of business and or going to jail. Exactly.
Riley Bowman: So these are high stakes games we're talking here.
Jacob Paulsen: I think clarity is coming. I guess that's my two cents is like,
Jacob Paulsen: no one wants to be patient. Everyone wants their rights now. Don't blame me too.
Jacob Paulsen: But I think clarity is coming.
Riley Bowman: Right.
Jacob Paulsen: It has to come. Clarity must come.
Riley Bowman: Now, let's talk about that appeal question. Okay. So we know within the seven
Riley Bowman: day stay, there was not an appeal filed immediately.
Riley Bowman: And it does appear that the Trump administration has signaled that they will not pursue an appeal.
Riley Bowman: And specifically, Representative Andrew Clyde of Georgia, he posted and seemed
Riley Bowman: to have word from the Trump administration suggesting, no, we're not going to appeal.
Riley Bowman: So it seems right now, as far as we know, that the Trump administration is not
Riley Bowman: going to appeal this ruling, even within the 60-day window that it has allowed to be able to do so.
Riley Bowman: Well, you may be hearing that and thinking, well, that makes sense,
Riley Bowman: right? Like, that's one of the reasons why I voted for Trump or whatever, right?
Riley Bowman: And so you're like, yeah, go Trump. Go, you know, whatever, right?
Riley Bowman: Here's the problem. This is what I argue in my paper that I wrote in this article.
Riley Bowman: Is I think that's actually...
Riley Bowman: While I'm also cheering and I'm happy about this, I think it's a mistake, potentially.
Riley Bowman: And the reason why I feel that way is because we don't have a true national
Riley Bowman: level ruling on this matter.
Riley Bowman: So if you're outside of one of those plaintiff categories,
Riley Bowman: now what? It doesn't really apply to you. So how do you get your rights?
Riley Bowman: Okay, you could join one of those organizations, that's fair,
Riley Bowman: but you shouldn't have to do that either, right?
Riley Bowman: And the other thing is, is that if we had like a Supreme Court ruling on this,
Riley Bowman: then that would be, bam, nationwide most likely, assuming it wasn't like super narrow or anything.
Riley Bowman: But most likely that would come out as, yeah, hey, this law can't be enforced,
Riley Bowman: therefore suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, boom, all right, just buy them over the counter, right?
Riley Bowman: Using a standard background check, 4470 or whatever.
Jacob Paulsen: 73.
Riley Bowman: I'm struggling today.
Riley Bowman: So an interesting case back in the Obama administration having to do with the
Riley Bowman: Defense of Marriage Act. It's known as this...
Riley Bowman: There it is. The United States versus Windsor case. And you might be thinking,
Riley Bowman: what are we talking about here? Why this? And I just wanted to make this point.
Riley Bowman: This is what you can read in the article. And you can read more and learn more about it.
Riley Bowman: The Windsor case was one where you had the Defense of Marriage Act that was passed.
Riley Bowman: That was under the Bush administration. The Obama administration did not agree with that.
Riley Bowman: They didn't want to enforce that law, but yet they still continued to do so.
Riley Bowman: And they could also read the writing on the wall, so to speak,
Riley Bowman: and knew that there's a good chance that that would be overturned at the Supreme Court level.
Riley Bowman: And so they, while continuing to enforce a law, and arguing
Riley Bowman: For the law, because you had plaintiffs now suing the federal government in
Riley Bowman: that case, saying the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.
Riley Bowman: The Obama administration basically
Riley Bowman: took a strategy where they acted as though they supported the law
Riley Bowman: and therefore needed to uphold it and enforce it, and basically argued it all
Riley Bowman: the way to the Supreme Court so that it would be overturned at the Supreme Court level.
Riley Bowman: And that therefore meant that that law was done and over with.
Riley Bowman: And that's actually what I argue in this article is, like, while we are cheering
Riley Bowman: this case, this ruling, and the Trump administration, thank you,
Riley Bowman: Mr. Trump, for not appealing.
Riley Bowman: I think it's actually a bit short-sighted because I think...
Riley Bowman: But there's a place where they could have continued to push the case forward
Riley Bowman: to potentially try to get it before the Supreme Court and then get a lot more
Riley Bowman: permanent ruling on the question of suppressors, SBRs, SBSs as it relates to the NFA.
Riley Bowman: There you go. There's my argument.
Jacob Paulsen: Yeah, I think, though, that the current state, the current decision,
Jacob Paulsen: whatever, assuming it stands, does not preclude an eventual full solution.
Jacob Paulsen: In fact, the DOJ could just decide, you know, laterally just make the decision
Jacob Paulsen: to allow this court ruling to apply to all people, not just the plaintiffs.
Jacob Paulsen: That's within their authority. They might do that.
Jacob Paulsen: We might see legislation proposed, right? We just got the big,
Jacob Paulsen: beautiful bill through. Like, what's to say the next bill doesn't come through?
Jacob Paulsen: So my point is that I don't know that I agree or disagree with you.
Jacob Paulsen: I'm sort of on the fence with the idea. In fact, I'll give you an example.
Jacob Paulsen: I remember, I'm on record here on the podcast. You can go back and listen to
Jacob Paulsen: the episodes. when the big, beautiful bill passed, I called it short-sighted.
Jacob Paulsen: I said, hey, we were shooting for the moons, and then all of a sudden we were
Jacob Paulsen: just, like we settled with very little.
Jacob Paulsen: Like why did we do that? Like why didn't we hold our ground and go after the big win here?
Jacob Paulsen: And now fast forward, and I'm like, geez, like actually seems like that was a pretty good strategy.
Jacob Paulsen: I'm no legal expert. I'm no attorney. I'm no whateverness.
Jacob Paulsen: I'm just suggesting that I think sometimes when there's a cookie there for the
Jacob Paulsen: mouse the mouse should take the cookie mm-hmm.
Riley Bowman: I hear your points. And let's also be clear that there are at least two other
Riley Bowman: cases in other circuits that are making their rounds.
Jacob Paulsen: Right, on the same argument.
Riley Bowman: And so this may still end up before the Supreme Court.
Riley Bowman: And I do recognize that. But I just want you to know that sometimes there's
Riley Bowman: maybe a bigger picture that we can have in mind with things like this.
Riley Bowman: And that's the answers are maybe not always quite so clear I myself would love to see
Riley Bowman: a much more, a broader more universal, more permanent ruling on this matter
Riley Bowman: rather than something like you just mentioned well the DOJ could choose to apply it this way
Riley Bowman: well that's nice and all until you get a totally different administration in power right?
Jacob Paulsen: Yeah but it is sometimes hard to wind back clock too so yeah I hear you I think
Jacob Paulsen: it could be argued either way is my point and I'm no expert.
Riley Bowman: Those are our opinions and our stories, and we're sticking to them. That's right.
Riley Bowman: Final thing. We're at the hour mark, but this is just kind of an interesting
Riley Bowman: thing I saw across the feed.
Riley Bowman: Bearing Arms, Cam Edwards reports, FBI's latest report leaves more guns,
Riley Bowman: more crime hypothesis in tatters.
Riley Bowman: So basically, back a couple weeks ago, FBI released their crime statistics report for the year.
Riley Bowman: I think it was for 2025.
Riley Bowman: Yep. But I thought I saw somewhere, maybe it was combined 2024,
Riley Bowman: 2025. But anyway, basically what it showed is that virtually every single violent
Riley Bowman: category went down, and in some cases quite significantly.
Jacob Paulsen: Yeah.
Riley Bowman: So the question is, what's going on here? And, you know,
Riley Bowman: if you were listening to just the anti-gun side of things, they would have you
Riley Bowman: believe that we really need stricter laws because we need to make our community safer.
Riley Bowman: But, yeah, while we're seeing all these big judicial wins that is opening up,
Jacob Paulsen: You know, access to goods.
Riley Bowman: Yeah, more. Getting rid of waiting periods, for instance, in New Mexico and
Riley Bowman: in the Tenth Circuit. Like, yet crime seems to be going down.
Riley Bowman: What's your take on this?
Jacob Paulsen: I think I'm not qualified to have any opinion on why crime is dropping.
Jacob Paulsen: So that's my first two cents. It's like, are we doing better policing? I don't know.
Jacob Paulsen: Are we having good legislation?
Jacob Paulsen: I don't know.
Jacob Paulsen: I don't know. I think that the argument that this article is making is that
Jacob Paulsen: basically what's clear is that while Americans own more guns than ever,
Jacob Paulsen: More guns per American, more guns in America.
Jacob Paulsen: Despite that number continuing to grow, the crime numbers are dropping.
Jacob Paulsen: And I'll add that the crime numbers dropping is an ongoing trend,
Jacob Paulsen: not just like last year they dropped. It's like, no, they've been dropping for about 25 to 30 years.
Jacob Paulsen: We've seen hiccups. COVID would be a clear example of that where it's like crime
Jacob Paulsen: was dropping, dropping, dropping. Then COVID was like, oh, no, maybe not.
Jacob Paulsen: But I'm just saying, if you looked at it, it grows. If you looked at that 50-year
Jacob Paulsen: graph, violent crime has been dropping pretty steadily since about 1990.
Riley Bowman: Get this. The 2025 murder rate was 4.1 per 100,000 inhabitants.
Riley Bowman: This, of course, nationally.
Riley Bowman: That is tied with 1955 and 1956 for the lowest murder rate in history.
Jacob Paulsen: That's my point.
Riley Bowman: Right? Yeah. And it's believed that it's continued to fall and that whenever
Riley Bowman: it is we see actual numbers for 2026, that the homicide rate for 2026 will probably
Riley Bowman: be the lowest ever in our recorded history.
Jacob Paulsen: Yeah, and if we went and found like the highest ever, I'm guessing it's probably
Jacob Paulsen: about 1987. Yeah. Or 1985.
Riley Bowman: Yeah, it's in the 80s for sure.
Jacob Paulsen: And that's the point. So I guess I'm just trying to point out the like,
Jacob Paulsen: yay, awesome, safe or good.
Jacob Paulsen: But I think it'd be short-sighted to attribute this purely to something that's
Jacob Paulsen: happened in the last year or two or three because it's an ongoing trend.
Jacob Paulsen: I think that the other notable thing is that the number of guns in America is
Jacob Paulsen: only going up at the same time this is dropping. And that is,
Jacob Paulsen: I mean, I'm not saying one is a result of the other.
Jacob Paulsen: I'm saying that at the very least,
Jacob Paulsen: it is true yeah.
Riley Bowman: It is interesting to point out though
Jacob Paulsen: I was trying to come up with the words causation versus correlation I'm not
Jacob Paulsen: saying it's causation but I'm saying there's correlation yeah.
Riley Bowman: At the very least, you have two things that are true, and one is the U.S.
Riley Bowman: Is about as safe as it's ever been, and while we have more proliferation of guns.
Riley Bowman: It's also interesting to note that the Giffords, the Bradys,
Riley Bowman: the Everytown organizations would have you believe that things like Bruin has
Riley Bowman: made our country less safe.
Riley Bowman: And now New Jersey and Maryland and Hawaii is having to issue permits, shall issue.
Riley Bowman: And that's terrible. And yet the crime rate has not gone up in those places
Riley Bowman: that they are now issuing permits at a faster rate than they probably ever have.
Riley Bowman: In fact, Maryland saw a fourfold increase in carry permits in the year following Bruin.
Riley Bowman: New Jersey has seen a huge increase in permit issuances since Bruin,
Riley Bowman: and yet crime rates continue to drop.
Jacob Paulsen: I do think that there's a relevant warning for our audience,
Jacob Paulsen: people who would listen to this podcast.
Jacob Paulsen: I think there's two warnings. I think one warning is sort of don't then assume that you're good now.
Riley Bowman: Yeah. Right?
Jacob Paulsen: The decision to carry a gun on you, at least initially, is emotional.
Jacob Paulsen: And for long-term listeners of this podcast, people have been carrying guns
Jacob Paulsen: for years and years and years.
Jacob Paulsen: It goes from emotional into some form of logic or lifestyle, and that's fine.
Jacob Paulsen: In fact, it's awesome. It's admirable. Good job.
Jacob Paulsen: The risk is that you hear something like this, like all the crime rates are
Jacob Paulsen: going down. You say, oh, cool. Then I can be a little bit more conservative
Jacob Paulsen: with my actions, with my personal preparedness.
Jacob Paulsen: And I think that would be very unwise.
Jacob Paulsen: Just because crime rates go down don't mean they don't happen.
Jacob Paulsen: It doesn't mean it won't happen to you tomorrow. So that's my first thought.
Jacob Paulsen: And my second thought is that this, like you have to make decisions for you.
Jacob Paulsen: Like you have to say, like the equation has not changed for me.
Jacob Paulsen: I never thought that I was likely to be involved in a violent crime.
Jacob Paulsen: Like at no point in my self-defense journey did I say, man, I'm like the odds
Jacob Paulsen: of me being in an active shooter event or getting, you know,
Jacob Paulsen: robbed, you know, a car jacked with a gun in my face. Those are really high odds.
Jacob Paulsen: So I'm going to start carrying it. That's never, ever been my justification.
Jacob Paulsen: And most of the people listen to this, maybe at some point that was like there
Jacob Paulsen: was some element that played into like you had some fear.
Jacob Paulsen: But at no point ever have the odds been high.
Jacob Paulsen: Yeah. It's never been true. Like none of us have lived in maybe some of you
Jacob Paulsen: live in neighborhoods where the odds were high.
Jacob Paulsen: But certainly for most of you listening to this the odds were never high.
Jacob Paulsen: So while the odds now might be a little bit lower like just marginally lower
Jacob Paulsen: fractionally lower it really shouldn't change the equation because I don't carry
Jacob Paulsen: a gun because of the odds.
Riley Bowman: Yep. Solid points, my man. Solid points.
Riley Bowman: More and more people are carrying their guns. More and more people have permits
Riley Bowman: to do so, or are carrying under constitutional carry laws and provisions.
Riley Bowman: Therefore, more of you are probably using, touching, practicing,
Riley Bowman: holding, handling your guns.
Riley Bowman: We want to encourage you to do it safely. I actually forgot to mention this
Riley Bowman: a little bit earlier, Jacob. It's our second sponsor break, but we're now at
Riley Bowman: the end of the episode. and we'll take the opportunity just to promote barrel block real quick.
Riley Bowman: Do all that gun handling practice, dry fire, all of that more safely. Use a barrel block.
Riley Bowman: That's what we recommend. That's what we use. We've got lots of people doing
Riley Bowman: the same, following, you know, right along with us in that practice.
Riley Bowman: Even more and more companies becoming more aware of things like that.
Riley Bowman: I don't know if people know.
Riley Bowman: Is it something we're allowed to put out there that, you know,
Riley Bowman: certain… Sure. Yeah, Shields, all Shields stores, you go in there.
Riley Bowman: For at least all the calibers that barrel block is available in.
Riley Bowman: If you see a gun in the store and they hand it to you, it'll have a barrel block in it. Yeah.
Riley Bowman: And that's just good practice. I mean, it's always been something that's uncomfortable
Riley Bowman: to me, Jacob, even when I was lesser knowledgeable or experienced than I am
Riley Bowman: now, but you'd go into a gun shop.
Riley Bowman: I remember one of the first times I went into a gun store.
Riley Bowman: Oh, can I check out such and such gun there in the case? Sure thing.
Riley Bowman: And then pull it out and like basically muzzle you and everybody in the store. I'm like, here you go.
Riley Bowman: And then, of course, you're looking at it and you're like, well,
Riley Bowman: how do I look at this thing without muzzling you?
Jacob Paulsen: It's an inherently dangerous environment.
Riley Bowman: So more and more people are starting to, you know, and dealers,
Riley Bowman: shields, that's what I was pointing out, they're doing that with barrel blocks
Riley Bowman: installed to make it more safe, inherently safe.
Riley Bowman: It's not something that is difficult to install or that difficult to remove
Riley Bowman: necessarily, but you know when it's installed, and it just makes everything
Riley Bowman: that we do with a gun in a non-live fire environment so much easier and safer.
Riley Bowman: So check out Barrel Block, BarrelBlock.com. Anything you want to add?
Jacob Paulsen: I think another niche use case that's important, I was talking to a guy about
Jacob Paulsen: this yesterday, is that if you're a person who's involved in the firearm community
Jacob Paulsen: and you produce any sort of video content with guns, then...
Jacob Paulsen: Please barrel block the gun while you're producing the video content.
Jacob Paulsen: You don't have to check the chamber 40 times and show it to the camera,
Jacob Paulsen: which is both a waste of time and at no point does the viewer feel an absolute
Jacob Paulsen: 100% confidence because video can be paused,
Jacob Paulsen: cut, all these things. The correct thing is just barrel block the gun.
Jacob Paulsen: You don't even have to say anything. You don't even have to point it out.
Jacob Paulsen: But any viewer is going to be like, that gun's a nerd.
Riley Bowman: Yep. In fact, every video you see of ours that's not live fire on a range or
Riley Bowman: something, the guns are barrel blocked.
Riley Bowman: That's been a practice we've adopted for years now. And I tell you, it takes a load off of us.
Riley Bowman: We know once things are barrel blocked, our camera guy knows,
Riley Bowman: everybody in the room where we're filming knows, everybody knows that that gun
Riley Bowman: is inert, essentially inert. It's incapable of chambering around.
Riley Bowman: It's incapable of firing around.
Riley Bowman: Until you remove that plastic rod from the chamber and the barrel, you know what you got.
Jacob Paulsen: It's no more dangerous than a hammer.
Riley Bowman: Yeah, exactly. So BarrelBlock.com. And a reminder of our first episode sponsor
Riley Bowman: today was the Concealed Carry Gun Tools app. Go to concealedcarry.com forward
Riley Bowman: slash app. Get that sucker downloaded.
Riley Bowman: You'll be able to see a lot of the same stories we just covered in the app right there.
Riley Bowman: You'll be able to listen to the podcast. You can go to the recent podcast episode, hit play, all that.
Riley Bowman: Check it out. Well, that's a wrap of today's episode, Jacob.
Jacob Paulsen: Yeah, good job.
Riley Bowman: We'll see you guys later. Bid
Riley Bowman: you adieu. Have a great weekend and a great week. We'll be back next week.
Riley Bowman: So until next time, a reminder to train right, train often, and train safe.
Jacob Paulsen: So you can fight hard, fight fast, and fight true. Take care.
Riley Bowman: A reminder that laws vary from place to place, and we encourage listeners to
Riley Bowman: seek local legal advice to understand applicable laws.
Riley Bowman: Concealed Carry, Inc., its brands and properties, and the Concealed Carry podcast
Riley Bowman: is not a legal service, nor are we attorneys at law.
Riley Bowman: We make our best faith effort to share Concealed Carry-related insights and
Riley Bowman: information about firearm-related incidents and the laws pertaining,
Riley Bowman: based on our own understanding and experience.
Riley Bowman: But things can be different where you live, or laws may have changed by the
Riley Bowman: time you listen to this. We cannot be held liable for your actions based on
Riley Bowman: the information shared in this podcast.
Riley Bowman: Please exercise care with all things pertaining to firearm use,
Riley Bowman: concealed carry, and always practice following basic firearm safety rules.
Riley Bowman: More information about safety can be found at concealedcarry.com forward slash safety.