Hosts Steve Palmer and Derek DeBrosse tackle the complexities and potential overreach of gun regulations under the Biden administration.

Steve opens with a passionate critique of the increasing governance by bureaucratic administrators, while Derek delves into the implications of the 1,300-page memo that could redefine private gun sales.

The conversation takes a dramatic turn as they discuss the controversial Michigan case where parents were charged with manslaughter for their son's actions in a school shooting, raising profound questions about criminal liability and the role of parents and schools in such tragedies.

"We are being governed essentially by a dictatorship when the executive branch can just cram down interpretations." - Steve Palmer

As always, the episode features the "Ammo Can" segment, where Steve and Derek provide insight into the legalities surrounding minors and handgun possession at gun ranges, shedding light on the often misunderstood nuances of gun laws for young adults.

"They're 'not coming for your guns,' but they are." - Derek Bebrosse

Remember, co-hosts Derek DeBrosse and Steve Palmer bring years of legal expertise to the table, providing invaluable perspectives on these pressing issues. Their combined knowledge makes Munitions Podcast a must-listen for anyone interested in the intersection of law and gun rights.

Memorable Moments

(06:31) The White House and Biden administration reportedly discussed regulating private gun sales

(12:48) Parents charged with manslaughter after giving a gun to the son who later used it in shooting

(18:05) Should parents be held liable for school shooting, or is school liable

(21:01) In Ohio, it's illegal to transfer a gun to somebody under 18

Email us your questions at info@munitionsgroup.com.

Co-host Derek DeBrosse is a licensed Ohio attorney with a firearms legal practice emphasizing in Gun Rights Restoration. Derek began his law practice immediately after law school in 2008 when he graduated from Regent University School of Law; Derek also holds a B.A. from The Ohio State University. Mr. DeBrosse’s practice not only focuses on rights restoration but also a variety of other firearm-related matters from NFA issues to FFL representation. Derek has represented individual, corporate, and grass-roots organizational firearm clients in both Federal and State court.

Co-host Stephen E. Palmer is a trusted Columbus criminal defense attorney of nearly 30 years. He has developed a distinctive approach to criminal defense work by making a sincere effort to know each of his clients on a personal level. Steve recognizes that no two cases are the same, and neither are his clients’ needs. He believes that criminal defense isn’t just about representing a client in court; it’s about helping clients craft solutions to their problems. Steve reaches solutions through careful contemplation of all facets of a client’s problems—not just the black-and-white legal issues.

Be sure to subscribe to the Munitions Law Group - Cheshire DeBrosse, P.C. YouTube Channel

Copyright 2024 Steve Palmer and Derek DeBrosse

Recorded at Channel 511, a production of 511 South High Media LLC.

>> Derek DeBrosse: I'm doing all right, Steve. It's been a minute, but, uh, we're here, we're still working, and, uh, the year has now started, and we're off to a fast start.

>> Steve Palmer: Yeah, you know, the sad part about having real jobs is that we can't just sit here and talk about guns on the air all the time. But, uh, we are getting our episodes out, and there's lots to cover today. Uh, the best news of the day, of course, is that we now have our website, the long promised, uh, website, munitionspodcast.com. Munitionspodcast.com. And why do you want to go to the website? Well, I mean, come on, you can get all the backlog of episodes all packaged up neatly in a bow right there@munitionspodcast.com. You can just hit subscribe and it'll take you to the place where you would always or where you would want to subscribe to any, uh, then, you know, we're featuring, uh, bios of our guests. You can see Derek's bio, my bio. It's just a great place to, uh, go check out the show and the content. So munitionspodcast.com, up on the Internet. Um, so those who have been following our show, and by the way, Derek, I had somebody come into my studio, uh, not too long ago that said, he's been listening to the show, totally unrelated. So the word's getting out, but those have been following the show. Uh, know that we cover all things guns, but, uh, with a little bit of a legal bent. And lately there's been so much going on with the regulatory scheme of things. And I know last time we talked a little bit about, um, what ATF does. Biden, President Biden's rulemaking authority, and generally speaking, the executive branch of government and the administrative branch of government, aka the deep state, regulating, uh, guns and changing the rules as we speak. And what I mean by this, this is my pet peeve. So I'm going to go off and then I'm going to let Derek talk about this new Biden policy. But my pet peeve is that we are basically a country now on the brink of being governed only by bureaucratic administrators. So you have, uh, uh, ATF officials or anybody in any administrative body, whether it's FDA, ATF, FFA, um, changing the rules, basically writing rules. And I'm not talking about going into Congress where there's a debate on the legislative floor where, uh, people are screaming and yelling at each other and talking about things. I'm talking about, like, behind closed doors somewhere in DC, in a bureaucratic agency, in office, people just decide, we're going to rewrite the rules. And, um, if you think I'm exaggerating, I am not. That crap goes on. And, uh, we talked a little bit about the Chevron doctrine last time, and basically what that means is courts have generally given deference to what the administrative rulemaking powers are or what the rulemaking power or rulemaking bodies do, the rules they make, saying, look, we're going to defer to them. They're the experts. But there was a recent case, what I'll call the New England fisherman case in the US Supreme Court, where it looks like the Chevron deference doctrine may be in significant jeopardy. And that's good for all of us who like our country the way it was supposed to be.

Steve Martin: This has been the whole theme under the Biden administration

Um, so along these lines and just carrying on with our sort of string of topics, Derek, uh, tell us what the latest is, because this really shows itself the most, I think, or maybe not the most, but in a very significant way in the context of gun regulation, because it's so easy for Biden or the executive branch of government to just create rules on us and change the rules. So, Derek, take it.

>> Derek DeBrosse: Thanks, Steve. So, you know they're not coming for your guns, but they are. This has been the whole theme under the Biden administration, right? We're not coming from your guns. We respect the second amendment, but we, um, know this started, uh, years ago. Really? Um, but when they passed the. What the heck is that law called that? Biden passed? The, uh, bipartisan Safer Communities act. Do you remember that?

>> Steve Palmer: Bipartisan safer. Yeah, exactly.

>> Steve Palmer: Hold on. Repeat that again.

>> Derek DeBrosse: Sure. So what the licensing scheme essentially says, to paraphrase, is, if you are in the business of selling guns, you need a license. So what's the natural derivative question from that?

>> Steve Palmer: Right. So, uh, any normal citizen taking that at face value is going to say, well, that means if I got a gun, store. And I'm a guy that, uh, uh, makes my living buying and selling guns at a gun store.

>> Derek DeBrosse: So the question is, what does it mean to be in the business of selling guns? So, traditionally and historically, for almost all my career until last year, it meant one, uh, that your principal objective was to not only make a profit, but also to make a livelihood. So we would get these cases in federal court. When I did a lot more criminal law where people were selling too many guns, in the ATF's opinion, they would charge him with a federal crime, selling guns without a license. And the first thing I would do is say, well, one, do you have a job? And two, how much money did you make on these guns? And if it was below the poverty line or if any profit at all, I would say, he's not making a livelihood. Right. Um, so what they changed was they kind of took out kind of. They absolutely did take out the livelihood component. And now it's basically if your principal objective is for profit, so anytime, let's say you have an old car, and it's just time for you to upgrade, Steve, I mean, isn't your objective to sell the car and obviously make money if you.

>> Steve Palmer: Yeah. And here's where the orwellian language sort of tricks you, because the normal people would say for profit. Well, that means that you're just selling guns day in and day out for profit, like you're trying to make money selling guns, but they're not interpreting it that way, or at least that doesn't seem the way it's going. So you're saying, uh, selling for profit means I'd like to make money. I'd like to make more on this gun than what I bought it for. And so it's an individual thing. So if I'm selling you a gun, Derek, that I bought five years ago at Vance's gun store here in town for $500, and, say, the value of that gun for one reason, another has gone up to $600, and I sell it to you for 600 because that's a fair market value. Uh, I'm selling it at a profit. And theoretically, uh, that qualifies, right? Is that what we're getting at?

>> Derek DeBrosse: Potentially.

>> Steve Palmer: Right.

>> Derek DeBrosse: I think the language, and forgive me, I don't have the exact language in front of me, but it has a precursor, some preparatory language, that says, like, principal objective. Right. So it's not just like if your intent is to make profit, it's like if your principal objective is to make profit. So I'd have to look at the language I'm trying to find it. Forgive me, guys. I should have had this in front of me. I apologize.

The White House and Biden administration reportedly discussing regulating private gun sales

>> Steve Palmer: While you're doing that, think of the playing the joints, though. Principal objective or intent? I mean, look, if I'm going to sell something, I have stuff in my garage and say it's, um, worth more than what I paid for it. It's a collector's item. My principal objective is to sell it for more than I paid for it. Because that's what we do. Ah. In America, in american capitalistic society. And anybody who doesn't want to do that, well, then go donate your junk. But we are selling things day in and day out with the idea, man. It'd be great if I could sell this for more than I paid for it. Um, now the question is, does that make me in the business of buying and selling guns? And, uh, this is where the play in the joints gets dangerous. Because there's enough wiggle room in this definitional structure for somebody to interpret this to say, no, you are in the business because the definitional structure says you're selling guns at a profit. And therefore, now you're going to qualify and you have to have a license or go through an FFL to sell it. So take it away.

>> Derek DeBrosse: So this is what it says, um, dealing with firearms to predominantly earn a profit. Predominantly earn a profit. Um, so again, they've taken out the livelihood component. So now where we're at is, how does ATF, given what we're discussing, right? This ambiguity and what the heck does that mean? This gives ATF the bureaucrats a playing fielder, right? It gives them room to run.

>> Steve Palmer: So if I'm Biden and I want to say, hey, look at go stop sales of private guns or private sales of guns, Derek, how do they do it with this?

>> Steve Palmer: Communities act, because they would be selling guns without a license. Right.

>> Derek DeBrosse: And so the way ATF is going to interpret the bipartisan Safer Communities act, where it says predominantly interprofit, is that would apply to all private sales, regardless of the facts. Now, I might be just jumping to conclusions because we haven't seen this memo, but we need to be aware of this before it comes out.

>> Steve Palmer: It's all about how somebody interprets this language, and anybody who's gone to law school or studied the law at all. You know, everything is about definitions. I mean, this is just logic. So how you define terms is everything, because it's like, what's, uh, a gun, and it could just be a hunk of metal with a number stamped on it. That could qualify as a gun, uh, if it's done correctly. So when they start defining language, uh, that sort of sounds like something else to mean what they want it to mean, to fit an agenda. That's when it gets dangerous, and that's when the administrative state has run amok. We are being governed essentially by a dictatorship. When that happens, when the executive branch can just cram down interpretations, uh, instead of, um, letting the general assembly do it, that's when we run into problems, not just in guns. I think this is in everyday, you.

>> Derek DeBrosse: Know, look, the Biden administration has said routinely they want background checks for all transfers of guns. If Congress wanted that, they need to pass it. We are not ruled, like you said, by this cabal of bureaucrats. And that's what this is becoming. And it's starting to piss people off, to be quite honest with you.

>> Steve Palmer: It, um, is. And by the way, Congress is complicit. And I will say that out loud. Congress is complicit. They are punting the ball of their job to the administrative bodies. And then Congress comes into session once or twice a year and bickers about something political and signs some omnibus spending bill to go borrow more money and spend it, uh, and then they go home. So, look, this is the job of the lawmakers. Exactly like you said, derek. If congress had the votes to do this, then they would just do it instead. They're going to hide the ball, to use your terms, hide the ball in the administrative merck, uh, and then create an interpretive structure that puts people in jeopardy, frankly.

>> Steve Palmer: Yeah, it's great. Good to know who's interpreting all our something.

>> Derek DeBrosse: They're not trying to take your guns. But they are.

>> Steve Palmer: But they are. Exactly. And this is something that everybody should watch. I mean, look, this stuff is happening, so when people talk about draining the swamp or cleaning up the administrative state, which is the way I like to say it, I'd rather put the government back in the hands where the instruction book that our founders gave us, uh, rightfully placed it. And that's at congress, right? I don't see the article in the constitution that says the administrative state of government. Uh, we've got three branches, folks. Uh, we've got a branch that's more than capable of handling this kind of stuff, they ought to just do it. My humble opinion.

Parents charged with manslaughter after giving gun to son who later used it in shooting

Um, all right, so we'll keep following that story. And, uh, again, that's, uh, empower oversight. And you can check them out. What's their website, Derek? Empower us?

>> Derek DeBrosse: Uh, their website is emp m owr us. Um, like I said, if you want to see, just type in empower oversight guns. It'll come up on Google.

>> Steve Palmer: Yeah, they got a little story there. Um, near and dear to my heart is any criminal defense case or any criminal trial. And I've been watching this case a little bit up in Michigan. And for those who don't know the story, ah, a lady named. A mother named Jennifer crumbly and her husband, by the way, were both charged with manslaughter up in Michigan because they supplied a gun to their son, who later used it in a school shooting and killed a number of people. It was really a tragic scenario a few years back. I mean, awful, awful stuff. But what comes out as the case sort of progressed is that the same day of the shooting, uh, the parents were called into the school and had a meeting with school officials and the son, because the son was writing and, uh, drawing disturbing things on paper. I don't remember the details, but basically a bunch of red flags. And the parents like, look, uh, maybe you should just take them home. Or the school is like, look, maybe you should just take them home. Parents are like, nah, we got to go to work. Uh, but we'll pick them up and deal, uh, with this later tonight. Turns out about four days earlier, uh, they had given their son a firearm as a birthday present or some other gift. A handgun, I believe. Um, am I right about that?

>> Derek DeBrosse: Yeah, that sounds right. I think everybody knows about this case. If you don't, you've been hiding under a rock.

>> Steve Palmer: Yeah. And the kid, later, after his parents left that same day, used it in a school shooting and killed I don't know how many people, but horrible. But the controversial, uh, part about this is not what the kid did. He's guilty of murder. He's doing life in prison. Um, it's. What is that the parents were also charged for, um, not like, negligent entrustment, not, um, manslaughter, wasn't it? Yeah, manslaughter. Not a form of murder. Not furnishing a gun to a minor, not a charge like that, but actual, um, I don't. I don't know all the nuances of the law up in Michigan, and I'm going to get some commentary on it from, uh, a friend who practices criminal defense up there. But this is a huge step, folks. You have to understand. If you're a parent and you gave your kid a gun, 99.99% of the time, you're not doing it in order that the kid can go use it to kill people, you're doing it for other reasons. Maybe it's like you want to teach your kid firearm safety, uh, et cetera. But the parents, I'm going to assume, I think, safely assume, when they handed the gun over to their son, they weren't thinking, here you go, sonny. Go use it. To commit crimes and kill people. I think what they were saying is quite the opposite. Here's a gift. Use it safely and use it wisely. Now, there may have been red flags. There may have been, um, mental health issues, mental health concerns, and, uh, uh, for that, the parents have both drawn a manslaughter charge, and mother has now been convicted of manslaughter, has not been sentenced yet. So keep following that. It's a very interesting story, uh, from a criminal defense perspective, when you're charged with what I'm going to call some intent crime. So if I'm going to commit a crime, usually you have to have two elements. One, you have to have an intent. Like, you have to do it with some degree of mental knowingness. Uh, and then the other thing you have to have is an act. Well, here the act would be giving the kid a gun or maybe not taking the kid home, but tent is the tough one. Uh, so it has to be reckless or negligent here. And, uh, it's a stretch of criminal law, I think, to call this manslaughter. Look, and I'm not defending the morality of any of this. Uh, I'm only digging into the criminality of it, uh, and how they charged it. But that's a very interesting scenario. And once things like this start happening, you can extrapolate this out. So, back to the gun shops and owners, um, or even private citizens who sell guns to somebody else. What is your responsibility? We would have to ask if the person to whom you sold a gun, uh, went and later used it to commit a crime. Think about that. Think about how far removed it can get. Uh, if I sell Derek a gun, Derek goes off the deep end in a couple of weeks and uses it to kill somebody. What is my responsibility there? Am I guilty of his murders or manslaughters? Um, and then what are the dots that need to be connected if you're going to make that logical leap? And I don't have the Answers, I'm asking rhetorically, because these are the things that get you thinking. And, uh, it's important that we think about them.

Steve Dahl: I would really hit hard on the fact that there's parents

And I guess it is worthy, more than worthy, of mentioning Derek. Um, what the heck were they thinking? It's like the school failed here, the parents failed here, everybody failed. Like.

>> Derek DeBrosse: Well, her attorney failed, from what I could tell. Well, there's a lot of TikTok videos on some of the, um, poor representation and some of the tactics she took in court. I think she's accused of flipping off, uh, some family members in the audience.

>> Steve Palmer: Yeah, not a good tact.

>> Derek DeBrosse: Not a good tact. But at the end of the day, I don't know if I was doing. Would just. I would really just hit hard, in my opinion, Steve, this is me just playing armchair quarterback. But I would really hit hard on the fact that there's got to be parents on that jury. People have to understand that preteens and teens do things that you cannot anticipate. I would have just hit that as hard as I could. I mean, convict somebody and have that criminal liability, maybe she should be held liable.

Should parents be held liable for school shooting, or is school liable

Let's talk about that.

>> Steve Palmer: Right, well, liable is one thing. Civil liable, maybe that's one. I'm sorry.

>> Derek DeBrosse: Criminally liable. Okay, let's talk about it. There's been some, uh, evidence, I believe, that was produced that they went in the morning of the shooting school, uh, called them in. There were some very clear warning signs, and they made a statement of something like, we can't miss work today. We're not pulling about a class. And he went and shot a bunch of students. Like you said. I'm not here to justify the morality of what he did at all. I think what he did was horrendous and abhorrent, and, um, he should be doing exactly what he's doing, life in prison. Um, but it's an interesting legal question, isn't it? Should the parents be held liable for that?

>> Steve Palmer: Well, and, look, criminally liable. Their argument was, or her argument was, in part. Uh, look, the school officials put this kid back in class, right? Um, so here's a broader sort of problem with what's going on in society, generally speaking. We as parents, we as individuals, we raise our kids. The schools should not do it for us. So we've given the school so much power, so much authority, so much, uh, deference, I suppose, to make decisions for our kids, for us. For our kids, even. And here you've got several school officials saying, okay, and then they put them back into class. So it's like, how does the school justify that? And there's a difference here between criminal liability and civil liability, being sued for damages. But here, the school took action, too, and they're complicit in this mess. Um, now the difference is going to be that they probably didn't know about the gun four days ago. Uh, and that's a rightful distinction on some levels, but it does raise the specter here of when you punt your authority as a parent to the schools, and, uh, you think, wow, the school says it's safe for the kids to go back in. So I guess it's fine. They must have done their due diligence. So, good enough. Um, this is the kind of crap that happens. And by the way, we should clarify here. Neither Derek nor I are professing to know the Answers. Right. This is just one of those. We are opening up the floor for debate, and, uh, certainly send us your thoughts and opinions@munitionspodcast.com. We now have an email interface where you can do that, so send us your thoughts. I'm curious what you think about it, because this is such a tragic scenario. Uh, just cramped, full of all sorts of political, uh, m personal, horrible, uh, pain. I mean, it's just a bad, uh, scenario.

>> Derek DeBrosse: Yeah, I don't have Answers. Like you said, steve, either. It's a terrible situation, obviously. And I'm not even saying the court got it wrong. I mean, I wasn't in trial. I didn't look at the evidence. We're playing armchair quarterback right here. But on its face, it does get my antennae up and gives me cause for concern. Know, parents could be held that severely criminally liable for another person's conduct, so I'll leave it at that.

In Ohio, it's illegal to transfer a gun to somebody under 18

>> Steve Palmer: All right, well, look, um, as always, we've got the ammo can, and it is an interesting coincidence, because I got a question recently in the ammo can, uh, that is somewhat relevant to these topics. And here in Ohio, we got the question. Um, my 18 year old son went with his college buddies to a gun range, and they fired a nine millimeter pistol. Um, were they allowed to do that? It was my understanding that, uh, if you weren't 21, you weren't allowed. You are not allowed under Ohio law to actually have a handgun. Um, it's an interesting question. And when I asked Derek about this off the air, uh, it was a deeper dive than I thought. So, Derek, take it away. What are your thoughts?

>> Derek DeBrosse: Sure. I love this question because everybody thinks they know the answer, and they're just generally wrong. In a state of Ohio, at least. Again, every state is different. We have to understand that at the get go, and not all of our listeners are from Ohio, but this would encourage those not from how to dig deeper, because in Ohio, you can possess a gun. Handgun under 21. And any gun under 18, the actual legality or the criminal act here is the transfer or the sale or purchasing of a firearm by somebody under those ages. So, uh, anybody under 18. Um, it's illegal to transfer a gun to somebody under 18. Any firearm, doesn't matter if it's a handgun or long gun. And if you're under 21, any handgun. There's certain exceptions. Um, the law actually says under 29, 23 point. I think it's 21, says that one of those exceptions is for educational, sporting honey purposes, to include, but not limited to, under the care and supervision of a responsible adult. Okay, so it doesn't define what a responsible adult is. In fact, Steve, when you and I were talking, an interesting little dichotomy kind of came up in our discussion. And that was, well, my, uh, son and his friend, let's say his friend is 18, hands him a handgun. Is he acting as the responsible adult? And the answer is maybe.

>> Steve Palmer: So. Look, how old do you have to be to be a responsible adult? And if I hand m another 18 year old a handgun, who otherwise I wouldn't be allowed to go buy it? What am I getting at? Everything is so wonky when you have these kind of detailed, uh, statutes.

>> Derek DeBrosse: Just to start from the juveniles perspective, uh, I foresee there will be two potential crimes in these types of situations. One, it's clearly illegal for a juvenile to purchase a handgun if they're under 21, or to purchase a long gun or a handgun if they're under 18. So the act of purchasing the gun could be illegal, but let's say they're borrowing it, right? That, um, act is only generally legal on the part of the person furnishing the firearm. Right. It actually says in 29 23, uh, 21, 22. One. One is the purchasing statute. Two, one says no person shall sell any firearm to a person under 18 or furnish any firearm to a person under 18. Um, so the possession itself is not illegal by the juvenile. I always give the example. Johnny is 16 years old. He lives in Tennessee, by the way. Just an aside, I don't know Tennessee gun law very well, but let's say, hypothetically, Tennessee allows when an older gentleman dies, to bequeath all the firearms to the 16 year old, and it's legal for the 16 year old to inherit those and possess those. Let's say that's a fact. Let's say Johnny then moves to Ohio when he's 17. Can he still possess that gun? The answer would be yes, because in the criminal code in Ohio, there is no criminal act. It's the sale or purchase of a gun. Well, let's say. Let's change it to another hypothetical. Steve is buddies with this 17, uh, year old and gives him a handgun, uh, to use, knowing he's not going to oversee his behavior, and knowing that it's likely illegal. Has the juvenile committed a crime? And Steve, I think you could speak to this. I think he could be complicit in the violation of the law that you have just committed. Does that make sense?

>> Steve Palmer: Yeah. So it took two people to commit that crime. I would have had to give the gun to the juvenile, and the juvenile gun would have had to accept it. So in theory, that's complicit. Now the juvenile is probably committing some other offense because who would care unless he went and did something stupid with it, right? But this is usually. It's not unlike the Michigan scenario, really. Um, except in Michigan, remember, it was a bigger leap. They charged manslaughter. Not one of these types of crimes. Not like furnishing a gun to a minor or somebody who is, uh, in Ohio, somebody who's not 21 or old enough to have a handgun. So it's a different. These are misdemeanors and maybe a felony of fifth degree. At the most, it's felony, um, five. Yeah. So maybe, uh, a felony of fifth degree. These are lower level crimes. Um, so this is a gray area. I don't like the idea that if you're not 21, you can't go buy a pistol, a handgun. Um, and if you're a minor, you can't go buy even any type of gun. So now the question is, if I go to a range with my buddies and we start passing around pistols, what are the rules? This is where things get really confusing. So it's a great question. And I think, like any other murky bit of pros, uh, the legalities of this, um, are uncertain, I should say. So. Look, I would only say be cautious. This is probably not a great practice. I think that's a whole different scenario if I'm going to take my son, or even my son and his friends to a range and let them shoot a nine millimeter pistol under the supervision of a real adult. Me. Not, um, somebody who just might fit the crime. But it's sort of like, uh, home inspections. To do the minimum to meet the inspection requirements is one thing, but it's always probably a better measure when you get to the dangerous stuff. Maybe do a little bit more than the minimum.

>> Derek DeBrosse: M. Yeah, I agree. Um, the juvenile stuff is always kind of funny. I remember this.