Episode
Ep. 33 - BYRNA GOES AFTER GAVIN - LUAN PHAM X HANNITY
- Published
- Dec 12, 2025
- Duration seconds
- 1085
- Processing state
not_requested- Canonical source
- https://traffic.megaphone.fm/SHDI1048209892.mp3
Actions
POST https://stenobird.com/v1/public/podcasts/byrna-bros-podcast-with-josh-schirard-7068615/episodes/ep-33-byrna-goes-after-gavin-luan-pham-x-hannity/transcription-requests
Idempotently request low-priority transcript generation for this episode.GET https://stenobird.com/podcast/byrna-bros-podcast-with-josh-schirard-7068615/ep-33-byrna-goes-after-gavin-luan-pham-x-hannity.md
Read the agent-friendly Markdown representation of this episode resource.
Summary
Luan Pham joined Sean Hannity on his radio show to discuss BYRNA's suit against the state of California. California legislators are working to take away self-defense rights even when using less lethal products. From the California Globe: In 2021, with the well-funded George Floyd protests across the country, police were confronted with violent riots and protesters, and forced to use crowd control measures. Assemblywoman Gonzalez claimed that her bill was in response to the unwarranted force used by law enforcement against protestors, journalists and others in the George Floyd protests. She objected to the injuries caused by rubber bullets, beanbag rounds, foam rounds, and other projectiles, the Globe reported in 2021. The California Legislature claimed AB 48 only applied to law enforcement crowd control measures, yet they banned the use of kinetic energy projectiles or chemical agents, which extended beyond law enforcement, as Byrna found out. “Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to challenge California’s ban on the possession and sale of pepper projectile launchers,” the lawsuit states (below). “Pepper projectile launchers are a commonly-used arm that many Americans choose as a non-lethal alternative to firearms. California doesn’t just deny its citizens this choice; it criminalizes the act of selling or possessing such an arm. This inexplicable ban violates the Second Amendment. In Caetano v. Massachusetts, a unanimous Supreme Court held that non-lethal stun guns are “arms” protected by the Second Amendment. 577 U.S. 411, 412 (2016) (per curiam). The non-lethal arms at issue here are similarly protected.” It is important to note that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled: The Second Amendment covers all weapons that may be defined as “bearable arms,” even if they did not exist when…