This Week in Guns 467 – Glock Rumors, California’s Impact, and Supreme Court Gun Rights Updates

Summary

This Week in Guns 467 – Glock Rumors, California’s Impact, and Supreme Court Gun Rights Updates

Date: October 26, 2025
Hosts: Matthew Larosier & Ivan ("Rat Man")

---

Overview

This episode delivers a lively, in-depth look at recent firearms industry news and legal developments. The hosts, Matthew Larosier and Ivan ("Rat Man"), dissect hot rumors around Glock discontinuations, unpack the implications of California’s new gun laws, analyze Supreme Court updates, and riff on the evolution of gun safety training. Throughout, the duo blends deep expertise with characteristic banter, diving into policy, market reactions, and the enduring intersection of firearms, law, and culture.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Glock Discontinuation Rumors and Frenzy

[03:03–14:00]

• Rumors: Widespread reports claim Glock is discontinuing all double-stack models (except slimlines), causing panic-buying and frenzied stock sellouts.
• Market Reaction:
  • Distributors, like Lipsey’s, offered deep discounts for remaining stock, leading to rapid sell-through of Gen 3 and Gen 3 clone Glocks.
  • Despite 21 million made, fear and nostalgia kicked in: “It’s incredible that everyone suddenly forgot that they made like 21 million of these.” (Matthew, [03:57])
• FOMO and Nostalgia:
  • Ivan explains the triple whammy of a looming ban, product changes after decades of stability, and fear of missing out.
• Aftermarket vs. “Appliance” Glocks:
  • Matthew notes hardcore enthusiasts build their own, but most Glock buyers see it as a no-fuss, reliable “appliance”: “It’s a Frigidaire. It’s… the one that I go to. Those people are not screwing with their guns.” ([09:17])
• Speculation:
  • Debate on why Glock would redesign its cash cow instead of suing California or simply abandoning that market.
  • Ivan: “It’s exceedingly strange … that their knee jerk reaction would be changing the gun rather than suing California.” ([10:43])
• Business Calculus:
  • Matthew posits the legislative changes in California gave Glock an opening to finally modernize their product line after years of being handcuffed by the state’s unique legal requirements.

2. Technical Talk: Glock’s Next Trigger System

[17:45–22:59]

• Expected Change: Anticipation that Glock’s "V series" will move to a full-cock (like M&P), improving trigger feel but also aimed at making illegal “switches” harder.
• Engineering Concerns:
  • Ivan notes risks: If the new system isn’t flawless, law enforcement agencies might leap to competitors—especially Smith & Wesson M&P.
  • Old “Glocknade” issues didn’t ruin the brand in the 1990s; stakes are much higher now.
• Market Landscape:
  • M&P, Sig P320, polymer CZs are serious alternatives if Glock stumbles.

3. California’s New Law: Impact on Glock & Precedent

[26:44–34:42]

• Law Overview:
  • California bans new sales of any “readily convertible” handgun—meaning those that can easily accept a full-auto “switch.”
  • Law’s messy drafting aimed to avoid (but ultimately still bans) the state’s most common handgun.
  • Existing Glocks remain legal; ban is on new sales.
• Paradox:
  • Gen 3–5 Glocks already require frame modifications for “switches”—the ban's logic is shaky.
  • Matthew: “Even on the Gen 3, you needed to file down the frame for the switch to work… On the five, it’s the same amount of work…” ([31:19])
• Dangerous Precedent:
  • Ivan warns: If this stands, future bans could hit any platform with a similar logic (“Any AR-15 can be converted easier than a Glock…” [25:01]).
• Big Market Shifts:
  • Chinese “switch” devices are commonly available, driving legislative panic and black-market proliferation.

4. The Role (and Irony) of Gun Safety Training

[40:25–55:36]

• Everytown’s Gun Safety Program:
  • Anti-gun group "Everytown" launches competing firearms safety classes—largely propaganda-heavy, per one reviewer.
  • Ivan points out the irony: “Whenever Everytown has to wear the pants… they need this disclaimer to say… you don’t get to sue them for that… If Everytown had their way, you would be able to sue Everytown for that.” ([42:49])
• NRA’s Enduring Relevance:
  • Despite image issues, the NRA is still central to CCW training standards—states still require NRA instructor certs, even as they demonize the group.
• Overton Window Shifts:
  • The fact that Everytown now offers an actual safety course signals a shift from “ban everything” to “at least appear credible.”
• Internal Drama:
  • Dissension and resignations within Everytown from activists who see “teaching gun safety” as betrayal.

5. Legal Landscape: DOJ Challenges & Supreme Court Updates

[55:36–66:40]

• LA Sheriff’s Department Sued for Permit Delays:
  • DOJ alleges that de facto denial via bureaucratic stalling (“Only two permits issued out of 8,000 in 15 months”, [56:38]).
  • Bruen decision’s impact: “You can’t do a good moral character anymore, so they just invented a way to do that plus one…” (Ivan, [56:38])
• SCOTUS Taking Big Gun Cases:
  • Wolford v. Hawaii (the “vampire” rule—no carrying without explicit private property permission) and US v. Himani (guns + drugs).
  • DOJ has filed amicus briefs in favor of gun rights in some cases; odd contrast with aggressive prosecution on others.
  • Ivan: “The only way it would be a problem for your gun rights is if you were in possession of a firearm while under the influence…” ([64:16])
• Case Nuances:
  • The Himani case is a poor “test plaintiff” (not squeaky clean), which could impact outcome.

6. Government Shutdown Disrupts Gun Regulation

[66:40–]

• NFA Processing Impacted:
  • ATF suppressor approvals abruptly halted, only to resume after industry lobbying.
  • Matthew: “Plainclothes individuals handling NFA firearms processing were all furloughed… suppressor approvals just stopped…”
• Long-Term Effects:
  • Expected downstream shortages and disruptions due to regulatory logjams.

7. The Adamiak Case – Legal Update

[71:40–75:42]

• Case Summary:
  • Adamiak prosecuted over deactivated machine gun parts kits, RPGs, and legally-configured 40mm launchers.
  • Issues raised: ATF’s past practice, the application of the NFA, and Second Amendment questions.
  • The 4th Circuit upheld the conviction with little rationale except for a double-jeopardy issue.
  • En banc and Supreme Court appeals are being planned.

8. Illinois Assault Weapons Ban – 7th Circuit Oral Arguments

[75:42–79:59]

• Oral Argument Recap:
  • Arguments were highly technical, with little direct constitutional analysis.
  • DOJ unexpectedly took a strong pro-gun stance: “The Second Amendment has been about civilians having military firearms since the very beginning.” (Ivan, [78:06])
  • Uncertainty about the final outcome; possible escalation to Supreme Court if the ban is upheld.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Glock Panics:

  • Matthew: "It’s incredible that everyone suddenly forgot that they made like 21 million of these.” ([03:57])
  • Ivan: “Not everybody is rational enough to say there’s 21 million of them. Why do I need to run out and get another?” ([04:52])

• On Redesigning Glocks for California:

  • Ivan: “It is basically… exceedingly strange to me that their knee jerk reaction will be changing the gun rather than suing California.” ([10:43])
  • Matthew: “For these European arms companies, I just don’t think [litigation] is in the cards. I think they’d rather be seen as bending the knee.” ([16:29])

• On the Law’s Absurdity:

  • Ivan: “It’s just, it’s ridiculous… so maybe Glock might be doing this… their exposure to this problem is never going to decrease.” ([34:53])

• On Gun Safety Training Politics:

  • Ivan: “Whenever Everytown has to wear the pants… they need this disclaimer to say… you don’t get to sue them for that.” ([42:49])
  • “Dissension… within Everytown from activists who see ‘teaching gun safety’ as betrayal.” ([50:18])

• On DOJ Contradictions:

  • Matthew: “It’s all… very confusing. They should… talk and maybe kiss a little, you know, I don’t know.” ([80:12])
  • Ivan: “I guess the ultimate irony is… there’s so little coordination… it’s like a misfigured stump… detached from the rest of its body.” ([81:11])

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• [03:03–14:00] — Glock Rumors, Panic Buying, and Market Analysis
• [14:00–22:59] — Glock Technical Speculation & Industry Risk
• [26:44–34:42] — California Law & Broader Precedent
• [40:25–55:36] — Gun Safety Curricula: NRA vs. Everytown
• [55:36–66:40] — DOJ Lawsuits, Permit Delays, and Supreme Court News
• [66:40–71:40] — NFA Processing Disruptions from Government Shutdown
• [71:40–75:42] — Adamiak Case Update
• [75:42–79:59] — Illinois Assault Weapons Ban: 7th Circuit Oral Arguments

---

Tone & Style

The hosts mix serious policy analysis with irreverent firearms in-jokes and asides. Technical digressions are balanced with frank, often sardonic commentary (“Look at Peter Lucier, obviously satanic Marine Corps veteran… What’s going on with your hair?” — Matthew, [48:28]). The dialogue gives space for informed disagreement, healthy skepticism, and humor.

---

Summary

This episode delivers a thorough, candid look at a pivotal moment for both the gun industry and gun rights. From panicked Glock buyers to shifting legal strategies and the bizarre optics of anti-gun lobbyists running safety courses, Matthew and Ivan deftly connect technical, legal, and cultural dots. Their banter, deep expertise, and skepticism make the episode both enlightening and entertaining for gun enthusiasts and policy watchers alike.

Transcript

[Matthew Larosier]

I tell you what, prices are getting high, but a fella still got to get his guns and ammo. We go hunting for all them good deals online every day. Go to Pew Deals. That's P E w dot D E A L S in your Internet. Now back to your podcast.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

Saving you money, don't you know.

[Matthew Larosier]

Hello everyone and welcome back to this Week in Guns. Brought to you by Patriot Patch Company, FFL Payments, traditional AR and MAP corporations. This show offers commentary in the latest firearms industry news information buzz. I'm your host, Matthew larosier and I'm joined today by the Rat Man. Ivan, what are you doing?

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

I'm wearing my, my shooting hat, my high visibility shooting hat and it's full of my shooting enhancement fluid group tightener. And I'm and I'm enjoying my time here on the classic call of duty 2 map. High rise.

[Matthew Larosier]

That's what that is.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

Yeah. With my intervention.

[Matthew Larosier]

Yeah. But yeah, no cool. Breeda. Breeda is the best shotgun. As anyone who isn't stupid would know. And you know, it's tradition for me to explain why we've been late. I don't even know what to say this time. Everything has sucked so hard. I had mega forever Covid. In fact, I'm still coughing like right after the last episode it started and a lot of crap has happened. It's just been like on the good side. We have some good developments in the cases that we're actively litigating. So it's all been good busy stuff and also some very interesting bijinish developments that we've had in some products that we're going to be able to bring to market very soon. So it's all, it's all coming up Milhouse. And we did have a FUD Blasters just come out on the cop Magnum gun, which I think was a pretty good episode. And we've got another one that's just gone through editing now, so we've got more content coming and as always, you know, the discord is always popping. So you guys are free to join up and, and see us there. But for now, let's get to the news. And I think the big thing that probably everyone is up about is this whole Glock thing, right? So rumors have been flying. Glock is notoriously tight lipped and they have still not confirmed anything. But the main story is that basically everything except the slimline Glocks are being discontinued and no more orders are being taken for them. The end of November. This has resulted in a sudden like mad rush to get every you Know, partially cocked Striker Glock that exists out in the world. And like the distributors are out of stock of everything except the most abjectly terrible firearms such as the Glock 21 Gen 5, which are like free apparently. You know, I've gotten, I've wound up with two in my life because they were offered to me for like a hundred dollars. And I was like, fine gun, for a hundred dollars, I'll take it. And then I just like, like this is an awful like chunking, miserable gun. Funny enough, that's the first.45 ACP gun I ever shot was a Gen 2 Glock 21. But, but we have several gun shop owners in the discord. And like people, the day after this news hit, our buddy nailed, nailed it. Guns and range in Iowa. You know, if you're ever in Iowa, check him out. He's, he's very nice, but no one lives in Iowa. But every single Gen 3 Glock and Gen 3 Glock clone that he had was sold within like 48 hours of this news. And I think it's pretty incredible that everyone suddenly forgot that they made like 21 million of these.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

Yeah.

[Matthew Larosier]

And so like, I don't, I don't

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

think they're gonna run out anytime soon. I think, I think it was sort of a, A triple, A triple thing driving people to buy them where it's like, obviously the impetus for this. Right. Cutting to the chase slightly, the impetus for this has to do with a governmental ban. So that's always going to make people feel a particular sort of way.

[Matthew Larosier]

Right.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

Additionally, Glock is going to be making changes to a handgun that has been relatively unchanged in this department since the 1980s, and it has earned a reputation since the 1980s for some bad things. Right. People complain about a mushy trigger pull or this, that or the other thing.

[Matthew Larosier]

They.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

But very, very few people are able to say, well, it's an unreliable system or one prone to premature failure or breakage. Because it's, at this point it is so well figured out. You probably, at least by the 90s, right. It has been so well figured out that it's been 25 plus years of rock solid performance. And now they're threatening to change that, right? There sure seems like more than threatening, it seems like it is going to be changed. So that worries people to some extent. And then ultimately there's some amount of fear of missing out or just general uncertainty about, you know, ultimately. Right. Not everybody is rational enough to say there's 21 million of them. Why, why do I need to Run out and get another or get my first one or whatever. But I think that that sort of fear of missing out or fear of like, it's going to go away, going, going on, and you got to get one now. And this is also additionally paired with the distributors. Lipseys, I believe, is like one of the bigger distributors of Glock handguns. And they had put out to their dealer network that they were going to be offering discounted pricing on all the remaining in inventory, you know, re pan, quote unquote, Glocks.

[Matthew Larosier]

Right.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

And I think that that sort of drove people crazy to get all of that inventory on shelves and into people's hands. So very much a perfect storm of factors that make people want to go and, you know, spend 400 bucks on a Glock.

[Matthew Larosier]

Right, right. Yeah. No, it's super interesting. And, you know, I. I was kind of soft making fun of people who bought another one. But then again, I'm the dipshit who owns like a bunch of Walther P99s. And then when they were like, we're done now, final edition, you know, my ass bought one. So I do think that was a little different. But I can understand the, you know, for me, I think the Walther P99 is the best, you know, service handgun ever made. And so I wanted to make sure I had a couple new ones when I knew they were discontinuing it. Because I'm like, this is the gun I'm gonna be carrying, you know, on. On a belt. So I can understand that. There's a lot of people who are probably like, this is the gun I grew up with. This is what I know. They're changing the trigger. That I know, right. I'm gonna get a couple just to put up, you know, and have in case I chew on this one or something. So, you know, I make fun of it, but at the same time I get it. But here's the other thing, what I struggle with. And we'll get of course, into the impetus more like the laws behind this and how that's kind of interesting. But the thing that I struggle with, and I think this is an interesting question, is like, and. And chat. Tell us down in the comments below what is the reason people love the, like, generally compatible cruciform trigger bar Glocks, Right. The gen. The gen 1 through 5. I always thought it was the wide range of parts, interchangeability and compatibility and aftermarket support. That's what I thought people liked about it. And then I talked to some of my friends and that was kind of challenged. Because to me it was like, well why are you worried that Glock's not making it? Because you're all of my friends that use Glocks. They're putting Zev this and, and this and that and the other thing brand into it. I'm like, you can just still get all the same stuff like you know, heck, on, on my website we sell everything you need to make a Gen 3 Glock and none of it depends on, you know, Glock co to make it. But then I realized, you know, probably the overwhelming majority, that's probably like less than 10% of Glock's market. Right. And even that might be stating a lot because what is the Glock to the average gun consumer, Ivan?

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

It's a police gun at some rate. It's the duty gun. It's a gold standard of it works.

[Matthew Larosier]

It's an appliance.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

Yeah.

[Matthew Larosier]

It's a, you know, a Frigidaire. It's, this is the one that I go to and those people are not screwing with their guns. And so it just really kind of shocked my perception of it. I don't know. What do you think, what do you think about like the, the mass reaction to it? Do you think it's, you know, people who like almost nostalgia and FOMO or, or do you think it's something else?

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

I think it is very understandable but at the same time it's one of

[Matthew Larosier]

those

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

like obviously, right. Glock is not telling us the full story here. Right? Because ultimately a company that has built their reputation. How many products does Glock make ultimately? Right? How many? They got two different products, right? It's their, it's their double stack frame handguns and it's their single stack frame handguns and they really don't actually make anything besides. Yeah, sure, some stuff on the side and there's bayonets or whatever, right. But yeah, 99.9% of their income is from really two different product lines, right? They have one of those product lines threatened also Horse team and also that. But that, that is a different enterprise. But they, they, they have. The bulk of this product line is the double stack handguns, right. It's the, the firearms that have been affected now by this bill out of California.

[Matthew Larosier]

Right.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

And this is like at least 70% of their business. It's a lot of their business has been threatened by this and it is basically. Right. It's exceedingly strange to me that their knee jerk reaction will be changing the gun rather than suing California or it's not like they have A factory in California. Just, just tell them. Get.

[Matthew Larosier]

Right. But here's the thing. Right, yeah, go on. Sorry.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

Because redesigning their firearm, which is their product, right. Since the 80s, right. They've got two products they haven't changed. It's. They built a legacy on this at this point. Or they can just continue making the same thing.

[Matthew Larosier]

So now they had one project, Right. The squiggles came out, you know, in

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

the past, much more recently.

[Matthew Larosier]

Yeah.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

But they are now going to not throw that in the trash can. But it's something like that. Right. They're going to make a new product and stop making the one that everybody knows and loves, slash hates, and they're going to strike out on their own and try and make a new one. And somehow this is a cheaper or a safer business option to them than either suing California or telling California's market. Sorry, it was nice to know you.

[Matthew Larosier]

Right.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

Which is something they've been considering for a long time because the Gen 3 Glocks were only in production for so long so that Glock could sell them in California.

[Matthew Larosier]

Right. Because of the roster.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

This has been something that they've wanted to stop doing for a long time. They've been public about their fact that they want to stop Gen3 production because they want to not have to keep an op, you know, an obsolete. It's effectively the same gun, but they want to keep the latest versions of red dot cuts and sites and recoil spring assemblies and their little doodads, little tweaks they've made along the way. They'd rather just be making one pattern of this one product they've ever made. So it's weird to me that that's how that shakes out. And it leads me to believe Glock probably not telling the whole story here because just a. An amateur understanding of the economies going on here. There's. There's no way this is the safe monetary call for them launching a product.

[Matthew Larosier]

But is it though? So here's the thing. Like, so you're saying you feel like it would be safer for them to keep going with the old ones was

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

either sue California or tell California to go screw. And sure, California is probably like 15 of their market or whatever. They have their existing market, however big it is. Right. And they're going to tell them we're not making that anymore. Here's a different one. And hope that that goes well for them. My concern though is if, if they have anything besides a flawless launch of this new gun, people, and by people, I mean police departments, are going to flock To M and P, this is, this is a. The biggest boon M and P could have been given. And so when I say I think Glock isn't telling us the whole story, they may be going through this storm and drang, right. They're going through this drama of, oh, we have to stop making our gun so we can make this whole new different gun to maybe give themselves some sort of great standing to try and sue California where it's like, look at all this.

[Matthew Larosier]

I don't think that's what's in the cards.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

You don't think so?

[Matthew Larosier]

No, I. So here's what I think is happening. Glock has had. And so let's take a step back. What was the state of the market a couple weeks ago? It was that Glock sold there. And, and for a long time now, it was that Glock sold their newest thing and the Gen 3.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

Yep.

[Matthew Larosier]

Right. And they were making new Gen 3s of like all the models. And why is that? Because of California's roster system. Basically, if Glock wanted to sell into California, they had to keep making that same gun. So. And like you said, Glock was very open about not wanting to continue making, you know, blah, blah, we want to, you know, spread our wings, etc. Etc. Then you know, there were all of these switch laws that are happening all over the country. They're trying to like, hold Glock liable for making the gun too easy to readily convert a store into a machine gun. But I don't think that was it. I don't think that was what was going on here. Because at the end of the day, and you know, you can call me an oracle or whatever, but whoever comes out on top right of this next big shift, be it M and P or the Glock V series, guess what? There's going to be a switch. A switch. It's just what it's going to be. It doesn't matter what you do. The people are going to find a way to do it. So that's, I don't think that's what really did it. I think what really set the ball down was California's new law that effectively banned the Gen 3 Glock. So California took the whole carrot away from, from them continuing to make the guns as they were. And so I think the Glock business lizards looked at that and said, screw it. Clean slate, you know, wipe it clean.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

Let's.

[Matthew Larosier]

Let's do what we've been wanting to do since whenever. Because I'm sure there was a component of their business model that was like well, we're kind of married to this design because this is, you know, whatever I, that's what I think is, is going on. I think this was. They're not, they're not in the business of litigating and I don't think that it's just not in the culture of these companies and hasn't been for a long time. Like you know, HK, as shitty as they are now back in the 80s was like a gold standard of companies that stood up to the government and they didn't engage in substantial litigation.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

Right.

[Matthew Larosier]

So for these European arms companies, I just don't think that's what's in the cards. I think they'd rather be seen as bending the knee and like giving the, you know, the government what it asked for. And you can see there's all these letters that Glock sends up. I think what this is, is Glock's like here's our opportunity to finally come out with the product improvement. I don't know what that's going to be. This is definitely, I think the most important moment for Glock because the V series, that's the other thing. We don't know exactly what it is. I think there's a couple things we can expect is that one, they're going to try desperately to make it harder to make a switch for it. Whatever. Right. I mean kind of self loading handguns, especially striker fired ones is kind of what they want to do. So that, that aside, that's going to be an obvious impetus for them to de risk right their market and then they're going to try to. I feel like the V series is going to be. And some other people have agreed that that weird competition trigger they had had in which model was it? The.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

It's just been a standalone product I believe. I think maybe you can buy the long slide guns with them pre installed but that may just be me making it up.

[Matthew Larosier]

But I thought that was the case too. But what was it called?

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

It's the Glock competition trigger. It's essentially a full cock conversion system for the Glocks which it doesn't work exactly like the M&P's but it's close to how the M&P's trigger system works.

[Matthew Larosier]

Do you agree that this is, this is probably where they're going?

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

I think it is entirely possible that the direction they're heading is to, is to switch to this sort of a system. I have used one of these triggers. It does, you know, it quote unquote fixes the trigger feeling of the GLOCK it makes it feel like an M and P because it still has a little bit of, you know, it still has that sort of like quote unquote excessive take up. That's mostly just to do with how the trigger safety on the thing works. But it doesn't know, you know, it no longer has that sort of mushy wall feeling. Because this is a full cock system. Traditionally in a Glock, right, the striker sort of sits at a half cock position and that mush that people refer to, you're pulling the striker back to its fully cocked position before it gets released. This system works much more like The M&PS, which is a full cock system where you're, you pulling the trigger back is just pulling against a spring that's doing nothing. And eventually the trigger hits a wall and that wall is dropping the sear to drop a fully cocked striker.

[Matthew Larosier]

And that's so that interface becomes here, right, this little nub, right? So basically your, your trigger bar is now instead of directly, because the way the Glock sear normally works is that the back of the trigger bar, as you're pulling it, it goes up, grabs the striker, pulls it the rest of the way back, and then at the back of your trigger pull, it falls down and the striker is allowed to go forward. Here you're moving a actual sear and dropping out of the way at the, you know, at the end of the pole. So it's different. I can tell you though, just looking at this, I can already see how to make a switch for it.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

Yeah, so that, that's their difficulty there. And so maybe they're going to come up with a version of the Glock competition trigger that is half cock. My, my ultimate concern with them doing a full cock system is, and I may be confusing this Glock trigger with a different drop in Glock trigger that makes it a full cock system that works similarly to this. But they advertise that you should not carry the gun with a round in the chamber with that system because the Glock was never designed to be a full cock striker system. So you've got a little bit of wonkiness going on there. And so maybe Glock has something new up their sleeve, right, Like a Glock competition trigger that doesn't convert it to full cock. So it's just that style of system. So at that point it's like a half cock M and P system sort of is maybe one way to think about that. So it is entirely possible that that's the direction Glock wants to go as far as why they do this. I mean, they've got a proven system that works so darn well and has so few moving parts. I'm not sure why, besides just trying to bend the knee and comply with the law, they'd go out of their way to try and re engineer this. Maybe this has been in there in the works for a long time. But my, my concern for Glock ultimately becomes if they didn't make this decision until California's bill was a certainty, they're saying that by the beginning of the next year, right here, in like three or four months, right? To have the new models out if they didn't start designing this over a year ago with the way Glock's reputation is.

[Matthew Larosier]

Well, that's why I'm like, that's why I'm like, it has to be the performance trigger, right? Because I don't think they would go out on a limb for something that they had not even like had out in the hands of food.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

And this is, this is a thing that's sort of funky to think about in an engineering practice where for smaller scale production, right, it's. But you drop in triggers or competition stuff, right? People are much more forgiving where if there's one lemon in a thousand, that's not a problem, right? Get it fixed, it's not a big deal. If there's one lemon in a thousand for a police Judy gun, that, that's a massive, a massive issue, right? We've seen that with some of Glock's competitors. It's really trashed the reputation to have a gun that maybe even less common than that. It still ruined their reputation that the gun seems so risky. Some police departments just out of turn have gotten rid of it without having an actual problem in their ranks.

[Matthew Larosier]

You're talking about the 320?

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

Yes.

[Matthew Larosier]

I was looking at the one on my desk right now. I'm like, that's you. Most of the ones we know of are fine, right? But yeah.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

And so then the trouble for Glock becomes if this rollout is anything less than perfect, it's not like they're in the 1990s, right? When Glock was the first one to offer 40 Smith Wesson, when all the police wanted that Glock didn't have any real serious competitors at that point in time. And those 40 Smith and Wesson guns early on, probably more so due to the ammo than Glock's chamber support. But eventually the ammo got fixed and Glock added more, you know, chamber support. The guns initially were blowing up they

[Matthew Larosier]

blew up a little bit.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

It didn't ruin Glock. The Glock nade thing, right, became a thing. And it was a meme that some boomers still hold on to. But these days. That's right, completely forgotten. It's because Glock didn't have any serious competitors. Police departments were still like, okay, maybe the gun blows up, but what are our options? Revolvers were not doing that.

[Matthew Larosier]

Yeah, and Smith and Wesson was still, like, rolling around on the ground, like, trying to reconfigure the.39 into something else.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

Here's a big heavy seal frame. That's what you want, right? No.

[Matthew Larosier]

Look what I found.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

This is anyway, a. A risky situation for Glock to be in because it's a completely different ball game now, probably chiefly an M and P. They have A. And of course, it's not just M and P. Some police departments use the polymer frame czs. I think that's kind of crazy, but some do. And okay, the 320 is not, probably not a perfect pistol, but some police departments, a large number of police departments use it. Right? It's a, it's a, it's a competition to the Glock.

[Matthew Larosier]

Right?

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

That's just how, how that works out. If Glock messes this up, they could really hurt their position on the totem pole. Right. Currently, I'd say that they're on the top, they're doing great. But they could dethrone themselves in what ultimately looks like what seems like an unforced error, like a complex, you know, moving to comply with a law that is ridiculous and stupid. I don't know, it's just a. A whole weird situation that Glock has found themselves. And then, like, the, the part that hurts the most about it is, I guess once we finish beating around at this point, maybe we can address the actual bill, but.

[Matthew Larosier]

Right.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

The part that hurts the most is that, you know, Glock becomes the target of this. As you touched on earlier, because of their popularity, there are switches that exist for M&Ps, right? Those already exist. If MMPs were more popular, then they would be the target of stuff like this. It's because Glock is so popular. It's the DJ Khaled meme. They're suffering from success. They're such a successful pistol that people that wanted to shoot fast found a way to shoot fast with the most successful pistol. And now California is going to say, no, no, you can't have the most successful pistol because people found a way to make it shoot fast, which is, again, ridiculous and unfair. And Stupid. But the more dangerous thing here is that if California gets away with this without it being successfully challenged. Pick a firearm. Pick a firearm that loads itself right.

[Matthew Larosier]

Yep.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

All of those can be banned the same exact way. Because if, if we are to speak openly and honestly, any AR15 can be converted easier than a Glock. And that's just the way it's been for a long time. And not that Glocks are particularly hard, mind you, but AR15s really want to be and people make fun of Colt and like, you know, the, the cucked lowers or whatever. Right. Colt was trying really hard for all their history to make it to convert their guns because Colt knew, Colt knew exactly how easy it would be because of the guns lineage shakes out. So it's right. It's an extremely dangerous precedent if California is allowed to get away with this. So I suppose, I suppose we will just have to see the way things unfold. But it's, it's not, it's not good, right? Certainly none of this is a good thing. And I'm not hoping for Glock to have something bad happen to them. Certainly I do like the M and P is better than Glocks. Don't tell anybody I said that.

[Matthew Larosier]

That didn't go through at all.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

But ultimately this, this bill out of California, the same California, mind you, that Kamala Harris is from. Kamala Harris owns one of these guns that's readily convertible, by the way. Millions of police officers in California own these guns that are readily convertible way, you know, with the new California bill version of readily convertible. Not the, not the way people misunderstand the way federal law works for that. But.

[Matthew Larosier]

Right.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

It's ridiculous because there's, there's a lot of these things in California and California has argued in court, oh, Glocks are a great option for self defense or whatever. You don't need an AR15, get a Glock. And now they're going to say, don't get, don't get a Glock. Don't, don't get a common pistol. Actually don't do that.

[Matthew Larosier]

Let's talk about the law specifically then. All right, now that we've gone on for 25 minutes just kind of bloviating about Glock and the future of a company that we have nothing to do with. Why don't you tell us what's in the law specifically? Why is this one interesting?

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

So the, the basis for this law, of course it's out of California, although California is not the first or the only jurisdiction to have one like this. But of Course, the. The impetus for this was a guy who had been arrested multiple times, got out, released early in California, got his hands on a Glock with a switch, and then shot up a party or a street or whatever. He did awful things. So California's reaction to this was not to do introspection about why they continue to let people do this. Instead it was, why don't we see if we can't stop the most common handgun in the state, in the country, possibly even in the world. Why don't we see if we can't just ban that instead? Because that's probably going to be a lot easier is ban the millions of that are already in the state should work. So they went and attempted to do this. Their. Their avenue for doing this was targeting the features of the handgun that make it so that it can be readily adapted through the use of an external device. Bear in mind both California law and federal law consider this external device a machine gun. But that notwithstanding, essentially what California is doing is saying if a firearm can accept a machine gun conversion device too easily, that firearm should be treated as, in this case. Right. Contraband. Right. It's a readily convertible or it's a convertible handgun. And the language of this bill changed drastically and wildly throughout the time it was being debated in California's legislature. I think most of the reason for it is they realized they were banning the most common handgun in the state slash the country, slash the world. And they needed to be careful about how they did that. They ended up not being very careful. They were. They were more careful than they were in the initial version of the bill, I'll say. But they were not terribly careful about it. And it sat on Newsom's desk for a long time, probably because again, Newsom's counsel probably sat there, was like, this is going to be a tough one. But Newsom went ahead and signed it anyway. And effectively what it does is make it so that any handgun which is, you know, quote unquote, readily convertible in this way. And effectively, the way the law, reading between the lines, the way the law shakes out is if without serious alterations to the firearm itself, it can accept the device that would convert it into a machine gun, you can know you can no longer sell it in the state. Ones that are already there can continue to be possessed, which is one of these, like, oh, they're worried about these things being converted. So they're gonna. They're gonna try and ban the millions that are already out there, right? Oh, no, no. Okay, yeah, sure. I can tell how serious you guys are about this. It's a, it's a grave threat to public safety. And so maybe going forward just like stop. Okay, Right, sure, buddy. But it's, you know, it's going to be new sales of them that are no longer allowed. And of course because of how California's handgun roster thing works and of course thanks to California Rifle Pistol association and their case, their case dealing with the handgun roster, they managed to make it so new guns can be added as long as they have a mag disconnect safety and a loaded chamber indicator. So there are ways for new handguns to get on there at least. But now they have to not be convertible. So you had the gen 3 glocks on there previously and if a gen 5 glock then had a magazine disconnect and I guess like a more serious chamber loaded indicator maybe than just the nub on the extractor, maybe that's required. I guess it's up to interpretation at that point. But the Glock could have had the Gen 5 introduced. But for the fact that the Gen 5 is. As far as this law is concerned, the Gen 5 is probably readily convertible, which is nonsense because the. One of the features the Gen 5 has compared to the Gen 4, there's not a lot of differences. But one of them is they put a little wedge, a little nub plastic on there to try and prevent you from converting the thing. That's the only purpose this piece of plastic serves is denying a switch.

[Matthew Larosier]

Right. But like the weirdest thing about that to me is they. So they did like add up the plastic. But here's the thing that always messed with me. Even on the Gen 3, you needed to file down the frame for the switch to work.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

Yeah. You'd need to file down the frame. And then on the five, it's the same amount of work. Well, about the same amount of work on the frame plus extra plastic added to the trigger, trigger group, trigger pocket housing dug at the back.

[Matthew Larosier]

I think. Always like, I was always like when I saw the lump up protrusion, I'm like, you're literally saying here's where to take it off. It's almost making it easier, you know.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

Right.

[Matthew Larosier]

It's a stupid, it's.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

It's all very ridiculous.

[Matthew Larosier]

Here's the other thing. Like the whole way this is defined is like based on the availability of the device.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

Right. That's the, that's the other like particularly weird part is that it's the power drill. Right. What, what the law tries to focus here is the convertibility of the Handguns. But the convertibility of the handguns in this context presupposes an availability of machine gun conversion devices that are themselves machine guns both federally and in California state. So you already need a chain of felonies, especially because for machine gun conversion devices being imported, it's like, like four really illegal. Four or five by the time it's in the state.

[Matthew Larosier]

Yeah.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

And felonies have been committed.

[Matthew Larosier]

Yeah.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

Now you've at least got it here, but you're going to need an ample supply of them for it to then trigger the guns being readily converted. Because they can't be readily converted if there aren't a ample supply of 5x felony machine guns to combine them with. Which is why, you know, there are switches that exist for the Glock 43 and 43X, but Glock is continuing to make those because while those switches exist, those are more prototype things and they are not being imported by the shipping container full from China. Meanwhile, for the switches for the double stack frame guns, I evidently, I mean,

[Matthew Larosier]

yeah, they've been on TEMU since like TEMU came to exist. Right back when it was. No. Remember what was? Oh, wish. Yeah. That was where like they first started

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

to really Alibaba and.

[Matthew Larosier]

Yeah, yeah. And it was always there were listings

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

on Alibaba where you could just buy them 3,000 at a time. It was. And of course everybody's like, oh, it's a fed trap. And then evidently somebody goes ahead and orders it and it's.

[Matthew Larosier]

Yeah, no, it's, it's, it's that ridiculous. Don't care.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

Yeah. The lion does not concern itself with American gun laws.

[Matthew Larosier]

And so the, the thing is, once there's a new winner, right. And a new standard gun, it's going to take time because there's, you know, the scholars are going to come up with the design and then eventually that design has to get to Gwangju, Right. Where it will be spread all over the country and then start getting pumped out like crazy. But I think that the time, the time, like time to conversion there has shrunk dramatically.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

Yes.

[Matthew Larosier]

Because you know, these, these Chinese sellers are selling, you know, this little piece of aluminum and they were selling them by the bulk for, you know, really, really cheap. But like, but no, but like 10 bucks, right. That's really good for a piece of 6061 in China. They're gonna go for that, right? They're gonna go for that as soon as they can, like.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

And criminals here, like, you know, there's been links on Telegram or whatever that have Been publicized like in, in certain cities, bigger cities in California a switch can go for $250.

[Matthew Larosier]

Yep.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

It's like created a gigantic underground market not dissimilar to the more common of illicit drugs, right. Where people are just willing to trade in these things because they will not get in trouble for trading in these things because there are too many people interested in these things and too big a supply of these things here that the government's plural in this case seem incapable of stopping. So it becomes a lot of parallels right to the war on drugs where the government is massively under equipped to stop this. And at this point California's passed a law that's maybe analogous to banning glass pipes or scales or something. It's like haha, you can't do it anymore. And everybody else, you know, everybody in the state is going to go criminal wise anyway, it's going to go okay, we're sure stopped with our supply of lots of these guns in front of us. So it's, it's just, it's ridiculous. And in just to get back to my point on why maybe Glock might be doing this, it is possible that a part of their economic calculus may be their exposure to this problem is never going to decrease. They may realize like maybe they see some writing on the wall that PLCA might not defend them in this particular instance or maybe PLCA is not going to be around forever to defend them in this instance. And they've got millions, tens of millions of these guns that they've made out there and they've known about the fact that they've could be converted for a very long time. They've got you know, internal memos discussing the fact that it is possible and discussing what it would take to maybe take that out of the gun. And eventually that's why the Gen 5 has some of the features it does. But Glock has not painted himself into the corner because they didn't do anything wrong. But right. Guck realizes their exposure only gets bigger from here. And if other localities are going to be passing these laws eventually, right, eventually there is going to be some state level judge that's going to issue a judgment against Glock for some number of millions of dollars. And maybe eventually those add up and maybe for Glock it's just not worth it because they can, if, if they try and cut this off here and be like look, we realize now this is a problem and so we stopped making these guns, right, Maybe they'll be able to then this state level judge that hates them or Whatever will now have to reckon with the fact that, well, Glock did stop and they tried to fix it. By the time they saw it was a serious quote, unquote.

[Matthew Larosier]

And they sent all those nice letters.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

Yes, they did send very nice letters about how sorry they were. Yeah.

[Matthew Larosier]

And how they agree and everything. But anyway, you know what's not sorry? A good holster. Oh, a good holster. Zero compromise holsters and gear from Traditional Arms llc. Guys, go on there and get your. Your holster piece. These are the ones that both me and Ivan carry on the daily. Go in there and shop holsters and use promotional code FUD Busters or Ratman if you want yourself a fat discount on some fine Florida made firearms holsters for whatever the. I don't know. They also got good deals on these lights, I guess like this. Only three times more than the Harbor Freight one. So why not? You know, it's the same thing. So anyway, guys, traditionalarms.com promotional code fud busters or rat man, get yourself a discount. Next up we're going to talk about. So let me pause and take a step back, right. And talk about the nra, which is again, if you. A lot of people like to hate on the nra. But if you want to go by actual win rates, if you want to, you know, make a impact on gun rights in this country, probably want to donate your money either to the federal public defender's office or the nra.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

I mean, I just want to add to that just because I always feel like adding this one. Dianne Feinstein even comes out and says the only reason that the 1994 assault weapons ban didn't have a confiscation like a buyback provision that was in the bill up until the point that the NRA started sending lobbyists to congresspeople's doors to say, you will not win your reelection if you vote for this. Because they had, they had the votes to ban and buy back all. And of course the assault weapons ban at that time was a very wide swath of firearms.

[Matthew Larosier]

Right?

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

It was, it was the two features in a detachable magazine, a lot of guns. And the original version of the bill may have even been one feature. But I may have my timeline on that confused to some extent. But the NRA is responsible for getting the confiscation provision out of that bill. And a lot of people these days like to point out the fact that they sort of became to some extent.

[Matthew Larosier]

Right.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

They became less effectual after that point. And maybe that's a valid criticism, but they are at least owed this one iota of thanks. That's nice because I like my Colts from before the 1990 fours well and

[Matthew Larosier]

they're also owed Bruin and you know, every major. Every major case really.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

They've been around and of course people, people like to make fun of them for the things they don't do. But I think a lot of this and of course they have done wrong things in the past. Right.

[Matthew Larosier]

There is for sure a thousand percent

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

their track record is relatively good. And I think a lot of the reason that that people hate them is because the anti gunners love to point to the NRA and say look how evil they are.

[Matthew Larosier]

Well and I mean the big thing, I mean Wade lapierre really like his pants like really hard in front of everyone then kept screaming that everyone else his pants.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

Which was true.

[Matthew Larosier]

Yeah. Which was. And then the whole thing with the, the intern and everything. He just keeps. And pointing at you and saying you my pants. Right. That. That did a lot of damage. But anyway, that aside, NRA started right. Going way back as a marksmanship organization and still does firearms training stuff. Right. And that is still a like as far as state governments are concerned, that's a huge irreplaceable function of the nra. And so I can't even say this with a straight face. What if they had some competition? What if there was a little competition in this market? What if we got some fresh faces in to gun safety Everytown Train Smart Gun Safety.com courses Firearms trading on your schedule. This is the new Everytown fun safety program. No cookie. Yeah. Live. Live and on demand. Choose the way you learn. SMART Guide to buying a gun $20. It's. This is interesting. $40 for the smart Guide to owning a gun. I. I had read an article of

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

a guy who went through the class and then wrote up a summary. His report of it is that it is 90% propaganda. Talking points about like the most likely thing to kill a kid will be a gun. Like other statistics. Like it's like you're. If you have a gun, you're three times more likely to buy die by a gun. It's like yes. And people who have pools are more likely to drown in them. It's just how that, how that shakes out. That doesn't mean guns are unsafe because you need to control for that. And it would be very difficult to control for with the data set that they reference. But regardless, I think the most interesting thing about their class is it begins with a great big disclaimer. And that disclaimer Essentially says, nothing in this class gives you any right to come after us or sue us. If you rely on anything that you've learned here to do something which is, which is very, very funny because you sit there and say, well, at the federal level, there's a law that says about that same thing. And every town has campaigned and lobbied to repeal that law.

[Matthew Larosier]

Right?

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

So it's interesting that whenever, Whenever every town has to wear the pants, right? Whenever every town's the one trying to say, well, this is how you should be safe with a gun. They need this disclaimer to say, hey, we're telling you how to be safe with a gun. If you're unsafe with a gun and shoot yourself and say, well, I took their class. They should have prevented me from shooting myself.

[Matthew Larosier]

Right?

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

You don't get to sue them for that. If every town had their way, you would be able to sue every town for that, which is hilarious. So, you know, they, they, they certainly realize the necessity of plaka by the time they're trying to say, here's gun safety, everyone. Which is. It's just, you know, the. I, I can't accuse these people of being serious. Are people who mean what they say and don't speak doubly. However, they, they certainly don't go very hard to try and hide it. Right. It's a. It's all stupid. Oh, and the other funny thing is, as we're looking at these beautiful pictures of their.

[Matthew Larosier]

Well, I don't know what you're talking about. I'm just looking at the instructors.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

Yeah, they're beautiful pictures of their beautiful instructors. Their instructors give their first names only during the trainings. Apparently they don't give their full names, which is like a. They also don't give qualifications beyond being

[Matthew Larosier]

a firearms instructor, certified hunter education structure range safety officer.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

That's good. Their qualifications aren't great because ordinarily the people in these sort of things will rattle off like 100 qualifications. And maybe these qualifications aren't that important. Like, you know, I have been through the NRA range safety officer training, right? It's. It's not impressive or hard to, to be through it, but these people haven't been through it or else they would put it on there.

[Matthew Larosier]

This is the, the one qualification.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

30 years of experience hunting and handling firearms.

[Matthew Larosier]

Nellis is an indigenous woman with over 30 years of experience hunting and handling fire.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

No. That's fascinating. I would get, I would. If, if somebody was new, I would say, listen to that one.

[Matthew Larosier]

Peter is a military veteran. This Stephen likes IPAs going two combat tours to Afghanistan.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

This is like IPAs.

[Matthew Larosier]

Yeah, these are. I'm sorry, I. I wonder if you

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

could beat him in a drinking plank.

[Matthew Larosier]

I bet you I could. Any of these people up in a drink and play because they themselves, this is this. So is anyone gonna do that? Is anyone gonna take the stupid course?

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

Here's the funny thing is it's brand new and they're already offering like discount codes and coupons for their live ones or whatever, which is probably indicative of how popular it is. Is not very. The more I'm not sure. I think live is like it's live over the Internet. I'm not sure if they actually take you to a range. It would be funny if they did, but they probably need more instructors to, to do that. The, the more interesting thing though about this entire thing is, you know, ultimately, right, the way they're going about it here is propaganda. It's very obvious they're doing.

[Matthew Larosier]

However, they're like, well, it's actually kind of good propaganda because it's like, okay, no, we're actually trying to do a gun safety, right? And so honestly, honestly, it's on that. It's smart of them on that props like it is.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

It is smart of them to do. And, and I want to reinforce the point that gun safety and gun safe gun handling, right, it's certainly easy for people who are as familiar and around guns is like you or I to sort of like scoff to some extent at like, okay, this is kind of silly, but ultimately gun safety handling is something that is not always universally available to people and including people who own guns, right? It is possible to come into owning a gun in this country and have no idea how a gun works or no idea how to be safe with it besides what you might pick up from the movies or something along the way in your life. And I think in a country where there are more guns than people that, that, that can very easily lead to a problem if it isn't just in itself a problem. And I have long believed that we, we teach people even if they're not going to end up getting a license. In order to graduate high school in most states, you have to know how to drive because it's very likely you might be around a car or driving a car or need to drive a car, right? So this is just a skill that we end up teaching people. I think we should teach people how to swim in school because it's ridiculous that people can go around and not know how to swim if we're Going to. If we're going to mandate public school curriculums in general. Right. Swimming is not a bad skill for people to have. And driving is not a bad skill for them to have. And pulling a firearm safely, it's not a bad skill for people to have. I think so.

[Matthew Larosier]

Turkey US Air Force veteran.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

I certainly agree that. I certainly would insist that safe firearms handling is a good thing. So what they're trying to do here, outwardly facing is good. Of course. Then you go into it and it's propaganda. Right. It's all these people.

[Matthew Larosier]

I'm sorry, I gotta, I gotta interrupt you. Do these people really look like that or are they joking? You can't sit there and tell me they found a group of people that look this up to all sit together and put their fingers on the council. Yeah, the leadership council. And we've got our homie. We got our homie Dick Nose McGee over here who's now wearing a suit and has the same exact face that he did before.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

That's good.

[Matthew Larosier]

That's. I'm sorry, I just don't believe you. Look at Peter Lucier, obviously satanic Marine Corps veteran. More like Lucifer. What's going on with your hair? This is a. I'm sorry, I just don't believe in this.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

It's a whole situation. Anyway. The most, the most interesting part about this story is that, is that they

[Matthew Larosier]

got all these people to get their photos put online looking like that.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

Indeed. No, but they. In response to this. Right. So every town traditionally is a very anti gun organization that tries. One of the things they've lobbied for is of course Illinois and California and all these states that say the NRA is awful and bad and the worst. All of them for their concealed carry training require you to have a class from somebody who's NRA certified.

[Matthew Larosier]

Right.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

They ultimately look to the NRA to set the standards for what it is to be safe with the handgun. Which is ridiculous. But every town has for a long time tried to say these states need to remove the NRA qualification because the NRA is so bad they need to establish their own qualifications that are mandated by their own state police and certified by their own state police. It's position every town's taken for a long time. So it is weird to see the Overton window shift so far that now every town is like we got to try and do this on our own. We, we seem so rabid in our anti gun behavior that we need to outwardly present ourselves as. No, actually we're about gun safety guys. Super serious. It's not propaganda. We're totally about gun safety here. Look, say we're being safe with guns will teach you. But would you believe that insiders that work for or with or contract with every town have been quitting every town in droves in response to this?

[Matthew Larosier]

Really? Yeah, no, I, I heard about that. Where they're all mad.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

There's been a number of their employees that have quit and then went and did articles or op EDS or whatever to say as they are. We feel betrayed by every town because every town is trying to teach people to be safe with guns. Now these people know what's in these classes and they know it's propaganda and yet they're quitting their jobs and saying they feel betrayed by this.

[Matthew Larosier]

It's kind of crazy because every town

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

has found a new way to ram propaganda down people's throat, which makes them look slightly like one iota, one tiny little kernel, a speck in the distance of pro gun. And these people are like, oh no, this is.

[Matthew Larosier]

They're not even program. But just credible.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

Right, right.

[Matthew Larosier]

If you're going to talk about gun safety, why shouldn't you have a gun safety course? I mean, this is, this is a very smart thing for them to be doing.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

And so it's, it's like, like insiders, right. People have been with the organization for like a decade or more are saying that this is bad. And ultimately some of these people have, you know, very sympathetic or empathetic or whatever stories where they're like, I lost a loved one to gun violence and that's why I joined. Every town is to. And then the fine print to see all guns banned is what I want. Right. Okay. They can, they can believe that if they want to. I think that's wrong, but whatever. They believe that.

[Matthew Larosier]

Yeah.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

But they are now feeling very upset because every town has taken the. Ten years ago, every town would not have taken the position or taken the step of endorsing something like this. Not just endorsing it, they offer it. They straight up offer a gun safety class, right. That shows live fire of a firearm. So it's, it's very interesting. Right. At the very least, there's an Overton window shift and some every town insiders are very upset about it. And I think that's just shocking. I think it's very interesting.

[Matthew Larosier]

They got the four grues. Yeah, they got the four grues plus.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

Oh man. Are there any good, good ones in the plus?

[Matthew Larosier]

Yeah, let's read that. So they got the four gruels, which. There you go. People and then additional gun safety rules to follow. There are some additional gun safety rules as well. Never touch a firearm after you've had any drugs or alcohol. In other words, if your decision making is impaired, don't handle a firearm. Secure your firearm in a safe when it isn't being used to prevent misuse. Wear eye and ear protection when operating a firearm. Guns produce all sorts of soot and debris when they're fired and you don't want that to get into your eyes. They're also very loud and even one gunshot can cause permanent hearing damage. So at the very least you'll need safety goggles as well as earplugs or earmuffs or both. That's a good thing to tell new shooters. Use only the correct ammunition in your gun. If you have any questions, consult your firearms instruction manual. Heed every warning it contains.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

This is very funny because and it wasn't every town, it was before every town, but some of the people who helped fund every town were a part of the organization that made it so. Firearms have to say the Reed owner's manual and the owner's manual has to say all of this. It's capable of doing this, it's capable of doing that. And it can discharge if you do this. Like all of the legalese that's built into guns and all of the.

[Matthew Larosier]

And then all of the, like every single gun manual that says don't carry me with a round in the chamber.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

Yeah, eventually. Right. That is every town's. The legacy that came before them anyway. Right. Is that it's the, the pre Placo way. Gun companies could just have the crap bollied out of them by anti.

[Matthew Larosier]

Ensure the gun is safe to operate. And if you have any doubts, clear it and let a professional inspect it. Finally, always listen to and obey authorities when it comes to using firearms, including police officers, game wardens and range staff. That includes obeying all posted rules at shooting ranges. No, It's a. Whatever, dude. I, I mean that's one of those

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

things where like you know, as far as how awful anti gun lawyers can sometimes be, that is a. Like by the time you're speaking and I guess this is, this is a theory in law and there's probably a word for it, like a good term of art word for it. But it's like one of those things in contract law where if you speak as to what you know, it's better to be as silent where you can be as you can be because if you speak to one part of it, like we're Going to inspect your firearms to make sure they're safe. If you have that clause in your range rules and then you forget to inspect a firearm, you've opened yourself up to liability.

[Matthew Larosier]

Right?

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

It's interesting because that list of rules is nowhere near as exhaustive as it should be for the level of granularity they're getting into in some of those rules.

[Matthew Larosier]

Right.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

You know, and ultimately, right, they've got all these disclaimers and placa would keep them safe. But in a world where plaka didn't exist, that list of rules being given alongside a firearms safety training course would get them sued and it would probably even be successful in some localities because that's, that's not like, you know, when they say additional rules, it sounds like they're trying to be pretty comprehensive.

[Matthew Larosier]

Right?

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

That's not, that's not even remotely close enough.

[Matthew Larosier]

That is not. And that is funny. Anyway, next up, let's talk about some more anti gun stuff from the anti gun zone. The Justice Department has sued a Los Angeles sheriff's department over gun permit delays, which is ironic when you talk about a story that's coming a little later in the show. Show. But so yeah, the, the lawsuit is the latest in a string of Trump administration attacks on California and Los Angeles. And then the timing, 10:1, 2025. Right? So yeah, DOJ sues the sheriff saying that, you know, basically a right delayed is a right denied. They allege that the Los Angeles Sheriff's department approved only two concealed permits out of 8,000 over the course of 15 months, scheduling interviews because they have like in person interviews with each applicant to

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

determine if you're a good person, which is a Bruin said you can't do that. And so they just invented a way to do that that's like deluxe, right?

[Matthew Larosier]

They do it like doing it in every way plus one, but saying it's different, right?

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

It's like you can't do, you can't like do a good moral character because we understand what you're trying to do with that. And then California's like, well, great. But like, what if I do it, but I say I'm say I'm doing something else?

[Matthew Larosier]

Like, yeah, what if I say it's a mental bell. Yeah, yeah. And this is a, this is funny. LA sd. It's hard to not say lapd. LA sd the sheriff's department, not the police department, has systematically denied thousands of law abiding Californians their fundamental second amendment right to bear arms outside the home. Not through outright refusal, but through a deliberate Pattern of unconscionable delay that renders the constitutional right meaningless in practice. And this is true, you know, it's 100% true. You can't just deny without like a denial by any other me name. Right, right.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

Like delaying somebody two years is actually like, Right. There's, there's no way a serious person, there's no, there's no way that LA is going to end up defending this by going, no, no, like we serious. No, we, we think in our opinion that's, that's about right. Especially because I'm sure if you went and did the research, I'm sure you could become a cop in LA in six months. I'm sure they'd give you a gun in a car to drive around in with your gun, go and shoot people with. In six months. Right, six months.

[Matthew Larosier]

They gave a statement. Okay. And they respect the Second Amendment and they remain committed to addressing all applications fairly promptly and with a balanced approach. Words indeed.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

Yeah.

[Matthew Larosier]

They are saying they have taken steps to reduce the backlog from 10,000 to 3,200.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

I, if it was me, if it was me, right. I would have checked with my general counsel before giving something, a statement like that. Because 3200 is way too many. I, I, I admit to that.

[Matthew Larosier]

I, this is like one count. Like this is, it's, it's a lot. But yeah, so the, and it's interesting because, you know, they're all sure, oh no, but we're just so, whatever backed up. But like that's, that's bad news for them because a, like losing something that is a fundamental right, even for a very limited period of time, has been held time and time again to be irreparable harm, which is then, you know, subject to declaratory and injunctive relief. And that's what the DOJ is going to be going for here. So that's good or what, what it would be going for if the government wasn't turned off. And the government being turned off has had some funny implications for us in the legal side of the gun industry. And we'll talk about that a little bit more in a minute. But first up, Math Corp guys, go to maf-arms.com and use yourself the disco code. We got Fud Busters and Ratman. We've got all of the stuff, new arrivals, some very cool stencils, you know, super cool cut stencils that you can put on your stuff and spray can it make whatever. We've got very camo, Vietnam Tiger Stripe, M81 Woodland Desert Night Camo. They're all pretty good. They're from Rattler Innovations and a bunch of other new stuff. Hitchhiker build kit, guys. 49.99. It's kind of irresponsible not to pick it up at that price. So be sure to go to maf-arms.com and use code either FUD Busters or Ratman to pick up whatever it is you want. Next up, we got some Supreme Court news. The Supreme Court is to hear cases on guns, government confiscation, and several other issues. This is, of course, about them agreeing to take up Wolford, which is the. The Hawaii Vampire rule, where basically they say you are not allowed to carry a gun into private structures unless you have specifically been given permission. So it's the vampire thing where it's like you're standing on the, on the doorway and you can't come in and let you say welcome in. Then you come in and give them a little bite. So, yeah, that's. That's a big one going on there. And interestingly, in Wolford, the US DOJ has filed a amicus brief in support of the petitioners, which. Pretty cool. Yeah. Brief of the United States as amicus curie in support of petitioners. And then on top of that, SCOTUS has taken up USV Himani, which is a gun and drug case. Right. This is the pot weed issue. You know, whether being a pot weed user makes you forever a no guns or whatever. So that's pretty interesting. That's pretty good. Although I worry more about Himani, given the way this court is structured and how they kind of view some of these things.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

It also doesn't help that in. In the grand scheme of sympathetic versus non sympathetic plaintiffs.

[Matthew Larosier]

Right.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

I guess defendants, really. Right. They're. They're acting as a plaintiff insofar as our rights are concerned. But this is a criminal case where Hermione's defending.

[Matthew Larosier]

Yep.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

He's not the most sympathetic plaintiff ever because, I mean, he hasn't been convicted of anything. Like in Rahimi. The problem was, and he said he

[Matthew Larosier]

agreed he was a dangerous.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

Done some bad stuff.

[Matthew Larosier]

Yeah.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

Not a good hombre. Herman has been accused of being a bad hombre, but nothing has stuck. Right. Nothing. Nothing convicted. So that may be complicated in that regard. And so the background, just so you

[Matthew Larosier]

guys know, the background of her money is that the FBI had searched his home. He is a dual citizen of US and Pakistan. And when they searched his home, they found a handgun, marijuana and cocaine. And he agreed to having used both of the drugs. And so he was indicted for 922G3 for possessing a firearm while being an unlawful drug user or addict.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

So they had, they hadn't investigated him. Right. Part of the reason that they were interested in him is for some connection to some form of terrorism.

[Matthew Larosier]

Right.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

And perhaps you could infer the fact that they charged him with the guns and drugs as opposed to any form of terrorism means perhaps he wasn't doing a terrorism and it was a case of mistaken identity or something. But it's. The Supreme Court has seen other cases like this and has not heard them. Right. So them picking this one, maybe they just felt that the time is finally right now. Maybe they were looking for a defendant that wasn't new. Extra, extra clean as as it were. So who knows. We'll have to see how this things proceed.

[Matthew Larosier]

And the thing that's. That's funny is that this is the Trump DOJ intentionally pursuing this appeal.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

Yes.

[Matthew Larosier]

By the way, this is the heckin based Republican arenas that are appealing from a 5th Circuit affirming a dismissal of the indictment.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

Right. I believe that, I believe this was the case where the fifth Circuit had come to the conclusion that it would only be a problem for your gun rights if you were in possession of a firearm while under the.

[Matthew Larosier]

While you were inebriated.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

Yeah. While you were under the influence of some of these drugs. Because there is some support in founding era laws for if you are drunk and have a gun you will go to jail and then once you're not drunk you can have your gun and then you may face some fine or penalty or whatever. Certainly losing your gun rights forever as a result was not something not complicated. And so at the very least. Right. The penalty is a little bit ridiculous, but certainly like simple possession of a drug in simple possession of a gun without you being under the influence of said drug while having the gun certainly not contemplated in any sort of historical tradition in this country. Right.

[Matthew Larosier]

And let's be honest, it's kind of like a bit silly as a standalone mega felony.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

Yes. Especially because you can. There are some drugs that are so classified. Right. As forever prohibitors.

[Matthew Larosier]

Right.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

That are much less bad for you and the way your mind works while you're under the influence of them than alcohol.

[Matthew Larosier]

Right.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

Certain. Certainly people. People get one of two moods frequently with alcohol which is belligerent or very very sad. Generally speaking, neither is a great mood to be in when you have a gun. Yet you know, alcohol is not one of these. Prohibiting great prohibiting substances. But something like the weeds is which Is which is just a little bit silly, I think. And this is certainly something that's been overripe for review and it's probably something Congress should have fixed, but they're busy not paying each other or something for now and for forever. And so maybe this will turn to the courts and it will be interesting to see how this one goes. It will certainly be a very fun oral argument to tune into as far as which of the justices are going to be asking which questions. Because of course the prohibition and then subsequent mass incarceration that follows in the wake of drug possession has traditionally been something that speaks more to liberal sensibilities. However, in this context it's the possession of those drugs gets you in jail because you also had a gun, which is something that doesn't speak so well to the justices of liberal sensibilities. So it'll be interesting, I think, to see who asks what sort of questions.

[Matthew Larosier]

Right. Well we will see. We will have to see. In, in so far as seeing goes, you and your local gun shop should see that they should be using fflpaymentprocessing.com guys ffl payment processing by ffls4ffls. And if you've got any other ecom business or normal comm business, check them out, guys, you're leaving money on the table. Let them know that we sent you and you are going to get industry leading rates, I am telling you. So check them out. FFL payment processing.com next up. This is, this is, this is big. So the government has switched off a little bit. They had a, you see the issue is the way their bank account was set up is so they, you know, the government shut down non essential workers. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well the people, the like plainclothes individuals that were handling NFA firearms processing were all furloughed and so this became a big issue a couple weeks ago. Suppressor approvals just stopped. Right. And everyone was left in limbo as the ATF was just coming kind of sitting there mullying about. Right. And so the gun rights groups put a big pressure on them and oh geez, they put the pressure on and suddenly firearms examiners examiners are suddenly deemed essential shut down workers and they get back to work. The, yeah, the, basically the White House feeling so much pressure sent the wages back to the KG to process your forms. And this is of course the guardian. Americans able to buy deadly gangster weapons again, lobbying forces key concession from Trump officials. That is so. That is so good guardian. You are such a good little rag. US citizens are free once more to buy some of the country's most deadly firearms and gun accessories after relentless lobbying from the gun industry and Republican politicians forced a concession from the Trump administration under the federal government shutdown. So it's funny though, because this didn't solve everything. And as you guys know, I'm in, you know, we're in litigation with the ATF on a lot of different matters and we're in contact with them and so like, you know, I send little checkup emails and then all of a sudden they all started coming back with the appropriations with funds. My salary has lapsed and I haven't heard from these people. And so these are a lot of people who like handle form six import permits. They are not doing it. They are. And so a lot of stuff, a lot of big industry stuff is going to be in limbo and you're going to see ripple impacts from this. I think probably four or five months down the line where there's probably going to wind up being some shortages that wouldn't have otherwise been there. And all of this stuff always gets kind of like swept under the rug because again, most people aren't aware just how incredibly byzantine the gun industry processes are. So. But yeah, I did just want to share that those funny emails give me a little giggle which was barely enough to make up for the fact that I then, you know, we weren't getting our permits in time. Moving on guys, we've got another story. Don't go anywhere. Patriot Patch Co longest time supporter of the show. They have custom designed patches, apparel and accessories for any freedom loving individual. And if you want to buy anything from there, use promotional code TWIG10. Check out the latest patch of the month. Whoa. I'm still your Huckleberry. That's so cool. I got the last one in here. Well, look at this one. I got the old French woman from last month, look. Oh yeah, with the, the three dimensional boobers. So, so soon we'll be coming in the Huckleberry one, we can show that one off. But yeah, guys, Patriot Patch co use promotional code TWIG10. Get yourself a nice discount. Finally we've got story on like an update and a highlight on the Adamia case that Lee Williams had put up on Ammo Land. As some of you guys know, I've been representing Adamiak on in his appeal to the fourth Circuit. We argued his case. He was basically convicted of having three categories of items. Number one is what they call the machine gun, which was in actuality a cut up parts kit that is completely indisputed. That it was not operable. Category two was deactivated RPGs that were unequivocally not usable, had no fire controls and had a hole in the tube that if you fired it would remove your head, according to the government's expert. And category three is 40 millimeter items which he legally purchased the receivers of, had them configured in a legal way, so 37 millimeter and blank display barrel. Then the ATF, mind you, this guy sold gun parts on the other side of his property, found 40 millimeter barrels and then assembled them together to manufacture the what they called to be grenade launchers. So there's problems with each of those. Category one, the problem is the ATF has had approved the importation of parts kits exactly like this for unrestricted commercial sale for decades and decades and decades and never changed the law and never issued a public rulemaking that would put anyone on notice that any of the old pattern cut kits were problematic. Same thing for number two. In fact, Tate with these RPGs bought them in California and flew on a plane to get them back home, right? They didn't work. And the only way the government made them work was by putting in a training device, which is in actuality a sub caliber firearm of its own, replacing the entire fire controls with a complete Russian RPG 7 unit from the National Firearms Reference Collection, which is a normal thing to do, and then firing the training, the 762 training round, which is not, mind you, a rocket. Then finally, the problem with the grade launchers is that Thompson center squarely says that if there is a legal configuration that exists, doesn't matter if there are plausible illegal configurations, the NFA can't, you know, even where those items are in the same box, if there's a plausible legal configuration, the NFA can't attach. Okay, all of these arguments were raised and the 4th Circuit issued a per curiam opinion upholding his conviction on everything except for the double jeopardy clause, which quite obviously he was charged consecutive or sentenced consecutively to a 5861 and 922o violation, which are literally the same conduct, but one references whether or not the tax is paid, that's very obviously double jeopardy. And those. That is the only thing that was sentenced consecutively. So luckily we got his sentence effectively, you know, if it goes the way it should at sentencing, cut in half. But the 4th Circuit refused to look at anything else, didn't give any reasoning as to why and how these things were regulated. Arms or whatever they are, weren't subject to the Second Amendment. They simply asserted that, oh, Bianchi, which is their assault weapons case, completely forecloses this and moved on. So that was really disappointing. And we're preparing for a en banc petition and you know, and ultimately taking the, the full ride all the way up. And so, yeah, Lee Williams did this thing and he put a nice little picture of me. He said, patrick's case now depends on his appellate attorney. And he goes through basically the, the whole story on, on what happened in, in much more detail. And it's pretty good, pretty good recapitulation of events. And so I'd encourage you guys to check that out. The link is in the show notes. That is on Firearms Radio network website. But, but yeah, I just really want to thank Lee Williams for bringing so much attention to this story and because, you know, he's been closely following it for over a year now. But so, yeah, that is, that is that. I think. Ivan, do you have anything else to add?

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

I think the one thing that we didn't end up putting on this list just because it was right after the last show we did was the 7th Circuit had oral arguments for the Illinois assault weapons ban. And frankly, I didn't put it in the show notes because there was. There was very little of the actual discussion of the actual ban that took place. Most of the arguing was about, like, very, very technical stuff. They didn't get hardly into the meat and potatoes of the Second Amendment analysis, really. The state. The state kept wanting to have this case hang its hat on a completely different case. It's got a completely different record because the record is not very friendly to them here. And then the pro gun side kept wanting to say, well, the record's great for us here. We'd like this record to be used. And they bickered about technicalities most of the time.

[Matthew Larosier]

Right.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

As far as how the panel is going to go, of course, Frank Easterbrook is still on the panel, so there's one vote to make the ban stay. Yeah, we have Judge Brennan on the panel, though. And previously, you know, previously the preliminary, preliminary injunction phase, he was a vote for the band to go. And the, the record is now constructed such that. I mean, frankly, I have factual issues with this record the way it has been constructed, but it had to be constructed under the framework that Easterbrook had previously laid out whenever they got rid of the injunction. Right. So they're, they're, they're forced to litigate this under a ridiculous framework, and they obeyed this framework and went with it. I guess the one interesting Thing is that the DOJ was able to appear at oral arguments, use a little bit of the pro gun side's timeet. Dillon herself actually showed up to do the argument and she interrupted Frank Easterbrook and said that she was going to continue making her opening statement. That was kind of cool. I didn't, didn't quite get chills from it, but I was like, damn.

[Matthew Larosier]

Okay.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

I guess whenever you're the government, you can be, you can tell the judge like, hey, hang on, hang on, I'm not done speaking yet. So that was kind of cool to see. And the government took the very interesting position of saying that the framework they're using here is ridiculous and the Second Amendment protects bearable arms, including military style ones. Because the framework in question here is effectively just imported from Bianchi, because Bianchi imported it from a previous 7th Circuit case where it's like, if it's more like a military gun than a civilian gun, it can be banned. What the, are either of those things? Those, it's up, it's up to how people feel on that given day or something.

[Matthew Larosier]

Right.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

So it's an interesting case. It will be interesting to see it develop. I'm not sure you, the, the third judge was very difficult to read. I believe she's a Trump appointee. But we'll just have to see as far as what happens in the interim for Illinois's assault weapons ban. But ultimately this, this is very likely it ends here. Right. Because if we don't get the ban currently, the, the lower court had gotten rid of the ban. Right. It said that at a summary judgment phase, it's gone. Meanwhile, this 7th Circuit panel could now reverse that. If they reverse it, certainly the, the state is probably going to appeal it en banc and then who knows? Right. Again, all bets are off once more. If, if we lose, it's a question of do we try to go on bonk or do we just go and take this to Supreme Court and be like, this is ridiculous. Especially when you've got the DOJ on your side arguing, frankly, a really cool line of argument, which is the Second Amendment has been about civilians having military firearms since the very beginning.

[Matthew Larosier]

Right.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

Frankly, the government has taken a stronger pro gun stance here than many pro gun litigators have taken. And you know, maybe some of that may be strategic or decision making. Sure. But the DOJ is not pulling their punches in, like, the only regard they pulled their punches in is to say that we're not sure if grenade launchers are arms. But okay, I, I, I Think they have to be, especially given the other things you're saying. But, you know, whatever. Right. I'll take, take what we can get for now. The, the government, federal government coming out and saying extended magazine or high capacity LCMS, 30 round mags. Oh, unquestionably. Those are arms and they must be protected because they'd be useful in military service. And it's like.

[Matthew Larosier]

Right. Whoa.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

Okay, that's a, that's not something you would ordinarily expect the government to say is, of course you have a right to own military guns. What did you think the second amend.

[Matthew Larosier]

And then out of the other side of the DOJ's mouth, they're, yes, fighting to keep a Damiac as much as

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

I went to glazed. And then they'll turn around and go, oh, but a cut up military gun jail forever.

[Matthew Larosier]

No. And then they. It's all. It's really weird. Not only that, in Matt Hoover's case, the like the political appointee U.S. attorney for the Middle District personally showed up at the oral argument at the 11th Circuit. Why like to argue to keep a man locked in a cage over drawings. What are you doing? Doj? It's very confusing. They should pro. Like the left hand should probably, and the right hand should probably come and talk and maybe kiss a little, you know, I don't know.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

You would think. And I think, I guess the ultimate irony is that there's so little coordination that it's not like they've got a left hand and a right hand. They've got like a misfigured stump that is in the darkness, completely detached from the rest of its body.

[Matthew Larosier]

Yeah, it's a tentacle. It's like each, each sucker is communicating

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

chopped up pieces of a worm or whatever, trying to find one another.

[Matthew Larosier]

Join or die worm.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

And it's. It's unfortunate, right, because ultimately people's lives are, if not interrupted or inconvenienced, something close to ruined because of a Department of justice that feels the need to ruin their lives for its own sake. Right, because of course. Right. I'm not trying to say that every person the federal government goes after is a saint, because they're not. But Damiac wasn't hurting anyone and Hoover wasn't hurting anyone. And both of these cases have records that are very clear that no one was hurt and they weren't trying to hurt anyone. And the things they were doing, again, I would say these same things about a guy that's just straight up selling machine guns to his buddies. Right. As long as they weren't Hurting people with them, that shouldn't be a problem. But these cases weren't about operable machine guns. They were about something that was multiple. In both cases, multiple steps that a talented person would fail to do away from being those things. So just ridiculous that then they would go to jail for that all the while. Right. California is able to ban guacs because of a guy they let out of jail five times, managed to get a Glock and shoot people with it. It's. I mean, I guess I'm complaining about the nature of the world we live in, a society and all that, but it's. It's unfortunate. And as much as I might appreciate the Department of Justice maybe sticking its neck out further than expected in a few ways.

[Matthew Larosier]

Yeah. Further than negative 5. It's like 0.01 is more than negative 5.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

They have a lot longer way to go before they'll get to the point where they have my, I guess, unabashed admiration. Like, wow, that was really cool, because I would like to be able to, you know, tell my children's one day about the Department of Justice. They used to be evil, and then they were good. That would be a cool story.

[Matthew Larosier]

That ain't gonna happen.

[Ivan (Rat Man)]

Disney might pick me up on that, but bang, my line. I got a fairy tale for you.

[Matthew Larosier]

Yeah. Anyway, guys, thank you for bearing with us and thank you for your continued support. It. Let me just tell you that those of you who have continued to support us on Patreon makes a huge difference. It's, you know, especially as we dig down into some of the litigation we're doing for our Second Amendment work. The fact that so many of you have stuck with us and stuck with me has really made it possible to bring some of these cases and keep fighting for some of these people. So I just want to really thank my Patreons and. And, hey, guys, if you're listening and you're interested and you kind of like what we have to say, I'd encourage you to consider joining the Patreon, because we're a lot. A little bit more efficient than some of the larger groups. Your money might more directly go towards, you know, keeping the fight up. And of course, you get access to us on the Discord, which is a fun place, and we'd love to see you there and bully you into submission. But anyway, that's. That's it for the moment, as always. We will see you next time, Sam. This podcast has been a production of the Firearms Radio Network. For more, visit firearmsradio.net.