The Weekly Reload Podcast

This week, we're doing a guest swap. I was on The Dispatch Live with Kevin Williamson a few days ago. So, he graciously agreed to join me on The Weekly Reload Podcast. We covered some ground on where the gun-rights movement stands today on his show, but there was a lot left to get at. Will Trump turn away from gun-rights activists like he did with pro-lifers? What does it say about that movement that it's so reliant on Trump and the Republican party writ large? Why aren't we seeing more of a political effect from all those new pandemic-era gun owners? Will we ever? Similarly, we picked up where we left off on the Washington Post's Pulitzer prize for its AR-15 expose publishing graphic images of mass shooting crime scenes. Williamson argued the piece was litered with factual errors and, worse, it was intentionally misleading in what images it didn't publish.Special Guest: Kevin Williamson.

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss The Reload's exclusive reporting on NRA President Charles Cotton's private jet travel. We also talk about Hunter Biden's federal gun charges being upheld by a federal appeals court. Plus, we cover the failure of an "assault weapon" ban in Colorado, a bill going after Glock handguns in New York, and the latest in a Texas congressional primary soaked in gun politics.

This week, we're talking about a new effort to reduce gun suicides. That's why we have shooting champion Chris Cheng on the show. The winner of Top Shot season four is trying to raise money for mental health screenings and treatment. He is matching up to $5,000 of small-dollar donations in an effort to raise $100,000 for Walk The Talk America (WTTA). WTTA is a grassroots effort to try and reduce suicide from within the gun-owning community. We've interviewed one of their co-founders on the show in the past. Cheng said he's a big believer in their unique approach because it understands some of the novel challenges in reaching gun owners experiencing suicidal ideation without inadvertently discouraging them from seeking help. Cheng noted that seeking out mental health help can be intimidating for gun owners because mental health professionals have the power to take their guns away. He said WTTA tries to address this problem by educating those professionals about the concerns of gun owners. They have a training program and a list of professionals who've worked with the non-profit that gun owners can reach out to. But it's not just about reaching mental health professionals, Cheng said. The group also works to open up conversations about suicide and mental health inside the gun-owning community. It offers help for firearms trainers, store operators, and range owners. It also gives people direct access to free mental health screenings. Cheng said the community has come a long way in addressing the issue of suicide over the past decade, but a lot more is needed. After all, suicide has long been the largest percentage of gun deaths in America. So, Cheng said he's going to keep working to help, and this fundraiser is the next step.Special Guest: Chris Cheng.

Host Jake Fogleman and I discuss the Biden administration's new rule to restrict firearms exports. We also talk about the Fifth Circuit's ruling upholding enhanced background checks for 18-to-20 year olds and why the results of the latest NRA board elections suggest the members are pushing for change. Plus, we cover my new piece in The Dispatch and my appearance on CNN talking about Tennessee's new armed teacher law.

The Supreme Court has decided to take up another gun case. Although, it's another one that doesn't touch on the Second Amendment. This time, the Court will decide if the ATF's rule restricting unfinished frames and receivers is an unlawful overreach of the agency's power. Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University, joins the show to give us his insight into this case and the Court's recent uptick in gun cases. He argued that the Court's acceptance of two cases challenging ATF administrative power alongside an NRA First Amendment case and an actual Second Amendment case should be read as an increased appetite for gun cases. He noted that the Supreme Court has actually been taking fewer and fewer overall cases in recent years but more and more gun-related ones. He doesn't think that can be brushed aside, even if most of the cases don't deal with Second Amendment claims. Still, Professor Adler said he isn't confident the Court will side with the gun-rights plaintiffs in the so-called ghost gun case. He argued the way they intervened in the lower court case to issue stays on multiple rulings against the ATF should be read as tell for where the justices plan to go on the merits. He said a move like that might be more predictive of intent than most stays issued by federal courts. You can listen to the show on your favorite podcasting app or by clicking here. Video of the episode is available on our YouTube channel. Reload Members get access on Sunday, as always. Everyone else can listen on Monday.Special Guest: Jonathan H. Alder.

Host Jake Fogleman and Reload Founder Stephen Gutowski discuss an NRA board member pitching Donald Trump Jr. to become the group's new leader. Meanwhile, FEC records show the group continues to be outraised by gun control advocates. Plus, they cover the ongoing permitless carry push in North Carolina and the continued spread of gun store MCC bans in red states.

The murder rate is falling again, and mass shootings have been absent so far this year. This is good news, but it's also a bit confusing. Why is the murder rate dropping after several years of increasing? Is the same effect happening with mass shootings? Does the data show the two are connected? That's why we've got data analyst Jeff Asher back on the show. He runs AH Datalytics and collects his own crime statistics. He joined us last year when his crime data suggested 2023 would see a huge downturn in murder across the country. He was right. This year, he's seeing an even larger decline. Mass shootings are down, too. Whatever definition you use for the awful phenomenon, and we discuss the pros and cons of the different ones out there, the downtrend is interesting--especially since it now appears to track with overall murder. Jeff does his best to explain why these trends are happening and look forward, though he emphasizes the future is impossible to predict.Special Guest: Jeff Asher.

Host Jake Fogleman and Reload Founder Stephen Gutowski discuss Maine's new waiting period and background check laws, a new Iowa Bill allowing armed teachers, and an update on Colorado's push to ban "assault weapons." They also cover a new industry study showing the popularity of so-called large-capacity magazines, and why the government of Washington D.C. just settled its lawsuit against the NRA.

This week, we're doing something a bit different. I've been working with the National Journalism Center for a long time. They have a great program to train up and coming reporters. And we've been doing a range day as part of that training in recent years. So, the program's director T. Becket Adams joined me on the show to discuss what our gun reporting lesson looks like. He also gave his assessment of how much of the media covers firearms, the problem with the approach, and the solution to it. Part of that solution, he said, includes real-world training on key issues in gun politics as well as on how guns function. That's exactly what we give to the young reporters who come through our class. Becket said our program is the only of its kind he's ever heard of, and hopes other groups and media outlets adopt or replicate what we're doing.Special Guest: T Becket Adams.

Host Jake Fogleman and Reload Founder Stephen Gutowski discuss an 85-year-old woman defending herself in a harrowing burglary, the perspective of a new Israeli gun owner, and Tennessee's new school gun safety program. They also cover how Washington's magazine ban was blocked and then immediately unblocked. Plus, they dissect how Biden's latest rule casts doubt over used gun sales and Stephen gives an update on farm life.

This week, we're discussing a hotly debated topic: the gun rights of illegal immigrants. A federal judge's recent ruling that the law disarming a defendant who is in the country unlawfully, but who doesn't have any violent convictions, violates the Second Amendment has drawn a lot of attention. It has been one of our most trafficked stories at The Reload this year. The same is true for the dueling analysis pieces we published examining the ruling's legal theory and where the Supreme Court might come down on the issue. Given the discussion surrounding all of this, it seemed like a good idea to take a deeper dive into the topic. That's why we asked gun-rights lawyer Matt Larosiere, who wrote one of those analysis pieces for us, to come on the show. He gave us a fuller explanation of why he believes the Second Amendment protects nearly all people in the United States, regardless of their immigration status. He argued the modern gun prohibition based on immigration status shouldn't be able to withstand the Supreme Court's Bruen test because the Founders didn't view citizenship the way we do today and the Second Amendment's language is better read to protect nearly anyone in the country. He said reading the amendment to exclude those who aren't part of the political community doesn't work because the average American wasn't allowed to vote or participate in other key political functions during the Founding Era. Yet they did have their gun rights protected. He also argued that denying gun rights to immigrants in the country unlawfully, which is only a misdemeanor, necessitates adopting a legal standard that would put everyone else's gun rights at risk. Still, Larosiere acknowledged the recent ruling is an outlier and the Supreme Court is unlikely to take up a similar case anytime soon. But he argued gun-rights proponents should embrace the ruling and the logic that led to it.Special Guest: Matt Larosiere.

On this week's News Update, Jake Fogleman and Stephen Gutowski examine why gun sales have declined through the first three months of 2024. They also highlight a California journalist's examination of the "assault weapon" ban, Massachusetts lawmakers taking gun discussions behind closed doors, and an AP poll showing Americans find gun rights important. Jake also details the findings of a recent study on Colorado's "red flag" law usage in "Second Amendment sanctuary" counties. Plus, Steve previews his upcoming range trip with students at the National Journalism Center.

This week, we're examining the implications of Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin (R.) vetoing 30 different gun-control bills. Joining us to do that is Cam Edwards of Bearing Arms. He has long been one of the top pro-gun analysts out there. He also happens to live in Virginia, like me. So, he has paid special attention to the fight over guns in Virginia. Not just this year either, but for the last several election cycles. He argued the dynamics at play during this year's legislative session were pretty surprising. Not only did we not know what Youngkin would do with the dozens of gun bills that made it to his desk before he formally announced his vetoes, but the way those proposals got through the legislature was surprising too. Every Democrat in the state house held together to vote for every single proposal, even the more aggressive bans and restrictions. Cam said that was a fascinating development given the large grassroots backlash the party faced after its last attempt to enact sweeping gun reforms in 2020. He also argued the dynamic that has developed in the state's gun politics should be very concerning for gun-rights advocates. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss President Biden's approval on guns falling below 30 percent.Special Guest: Cam Edwards.

This week, we're looking at another Supreme Court case. This one involves the National Rifle Association, but not the Second Amendment. Instead, NRA v. Vullo is a First Amendment claim. On Monday, the High Court held oral arguments in the case. So, we've got FIRE's Bob Corn-Revere on the show to discuss how those went. He filed a brief in support of the NRA on behalf of the group. But he also has a long history in First Amendment litigation, including at the Supreme Court. He explained the basics of the case. Then he walked through why he believes former New York financial regulator Maria Vullo's efforts to get insurance companies to drop the NRA over its "gun promotion" activities ran afoul of the group's free speech rights. He also reacted to the questions each justice asked during arguments and gave some insight into what they tell us about how the Court is leaning. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about a report that shows the Maine shooter could have and should have been disarmed.Special Guest: Bob Corn-Revere.

Crime is a significant problem in Hartford, Connecticut, and some residents don't think local politicians and law enforcement are doing enough to combat it. Some of those residents have now decided to do organized armed patrols in Hartford's more dangerous neighborhoods. Cornell Lewis is one of the people doing that organizing. He runs a group called the Self-Defense Brigade, and he joined the show this week to explain his group's tactics and motivations. Lewis said he and the other volunteers who've been patrolling streets are fed up with the violence that has been carried out there. He said they want to show anyone considering committing violent crime that the community is capable of and willing to push back. The group gained local attention for its patrols last year but has gotten much more attention after it decided to step up efforts in the wake of a double homicide in the city last month. Not everyone has welcomed the group's efforts, though. Some local law enforcement, politicians, and community groups have said armed civilian patrols will only cause more problems for Hartford. Lewis responded to those critiques by saying the Self-Defense Brigade has no intention of being a vigilante group and is merely trying to train the community in lawful defensive techniques. Lewis said the group's methods have been effective, there have been no violent incidents associated with their marches, and none of the volunteers have been arrested or done anything illegal. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss a federal appeals court upholding Rhode Island's magazine ban. And we have a Reload Member on to discuss his experience as a recent convert to gun ownership in Washington, D.C.Special Guest: Cornell Lewis.

This week, we're answering your questions on the show! That's right, it's time for another Q&A episode of the podcast. The questions are submitted by Reload Members, then Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman, and I do our best to answer them. As expected, this episode features a lot of great questions that really stretch our knowledge. We tackled a wide variety of topics. Members asked about everything from permits in permitless carry states to the number of lifetime NRA members to the Supreme Court's view of machine guns. The questions take us all over the place. Plus, I describe how speaking to a group of Columbia University students earlier this week went.

Last week, a jury found the NRA did not safeguard its charitable fund or those who raised concerns about how they were being spent on former CEO Wayne LaPierre's lavish personal expenses. This week, we have one of those whistle-blowers on the show to give his view of the verdict as well as the group's future. Former NRA board member Judge Phillip Journey was among the eight insiders the jury said didn't receive protection when he spoke out about the group's mismanagement. He said the jury came to the correct conclusion. And he argued Judge Joel Cohen should appoint a monitor to make sure corruption is rooted out of the organization for good. Journey said he was sympathetic toward criticism of New York Attorney General Letitia James's (D.) political motivations. But he also said he had no choice in testifying at the trial, and the facts of the case were plainly against the NRA's current and former leadership. He argued drastic change is necessary for the NRA to survive and return to form. He explained the platform he and three other board candidates are running on in the current NRA election. Journey said he hopes the verdict and LaPierre's resignation will convince many current board members to join the reform effort, but acknowledged he hasn't gotten very far to this point and it's likely to remain an uphill internal fight. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I dissect oral arguments in the Supreme Court's bump stock ban case.Special Guest: Phillip Journey.

On this week's episode, we dive into the details of the verdict in the NRA's corruption case. As Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss, the top-line takeaways are not good for the gun-rights group's current and former leadership. The jury determined the NRA failed to properly safeguard its charitable assets or protect numerous whistle-blowers. It also found Wayne LaPierre diverted millions of dollars worth of NRA funds toward his personal expenses, which he will likely be forced to pay back. The ruling leaves the nation's largest gun group facing down the potential that Judge Joel Cohen could appoint financial and compliance overseers. That could wipe out the leadership that's taken the NRA down this road in the first place. For the former leaders, such as LaPierre and once-treasurer Woody Phillips, they face the potential of bankruptcy as the jury found they collectively owe upwards of $6 million to the members they stole from. Plus, lawyer Anna Barvir-Boone explains why a new step in the California gun case she's working on could signal a change of course for the Ninth Circuit. There's reason to think gun-rights cases could face less onerous legal fights on appeal in the future in the nation's most liberal circuit.Special Guest: Anna Barvir-Boone.

This week, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman interviews me about what it was like in the courtroom as New York's civil trial against the NRA and its leaders reached closing arguments. Thanks to the support of Reload Members, I've been able to cover much of the case from inside the Manhattan court where it's happening. This is vital because there is no live stream of the proceedings and the transcripts aren't made available until well after the events of the day, if at all. So, spending the resources to be up there is vital to understanding what is actually happening in a case that will affect the future of the nation's largest gun-rights group, which has received only modest coverage from major media outlets. Jake asked me about how the closing arguments went. I did my best to summarize what the NRA, Wayne LaPierre, the group's top lawyer, and its former treasurer put up as their defense. And how the office of Attorney General Letitia James tried to rebut those arguments. I did my best to explain, but the answer went on for a while, and I wasn't able to hit every point. I probably could have talked for another several hours on how the case unfolded over the course of six weeks or even just the closing arguments, which went on for eight hours. Jake also asked me to predict the outcome of the case based on everything I saw in court. I don't think it's possible to predict exactly how the jury will rule on the many, many questions they have to resolve. But I did think significant parts of the jury instructions make an overall win for the NRA, LaPierre, and others very difficult to imagine. After going over my time at the NRA trial, we discussed my on-the-ground experience during Donald Trump's speech at the Great American Outdoor Show. The rally took place in Pennsylvania, a key state in what's looking like an inevitable rematch between Trump and President Joe Biden. But it wasn't as newsworthy as I'd expected it to be since the NRA didn't actually announce its endorsement of Trump. Instead, it was much more akin to a normal Trump rally. Trump made some specific promises about gun policy, but none of them were new. The lack of an endorsement felt especially odd since the political speech was a new component of the event, and no other politician was invited, including Trump's remaining Republican opponent, Nikki Haley. And the speech was run like a rally, with the NRA repeatedly heaping praise on Trump and calling for him to be president again. The rally also featured moments where the crowd was encouraged to yell their shared disdain at the media in the room in what has been a staple of Trump rallies for years but which also fell more ominous after the events of January 6th. The crowd was energetic at points, cheering and laughing at Trump's now-familiar routine. But they also quieted down through long stretches of his stream-of-consciousness asides and the venue that started nearly full of Trump supporters was about half empty by the time he wrapped up an hour and 15 minutes after he'd arrived. Plus, I interviewed Jake about what happened to the rebranded effort to ban AR-15s and other guns in New Mexico.

This week, we're looking ahead to the end of the NRA's corruption trial that's set to arrive on Friday. To better understand exactly what's at stake in the case, I've brought on an expert in not just non-profit law but New York non-profit law. Pace University Law Professor James Fishman, who has written extensively on the subject, joins the show to give us some expert insight into the facts of the case and the potential outcomes. He provides an overview of what to expect once the case ends. Fishman argued the admitted misappropriation of funds by current and former NRA leadership, especially former CEO Wayne LaPierre, put the group in serious legal jeopardy. He also dismissed many of the arguments the group and its leadership have used in the case thus far. He painted a dim picture of the group's chances for success in the case. Fishman did admit New York Attorney General Letitia James (D.) erred when describing the NRA as a "terrorist organization" during her campaign. But he explained the NRA's repeated attempts to use her comments as a defense in the case failed because the AG built her case around provable instances of corruption and misappropriation of funds that have left the NRA in dire straights. He argued those facts would weigh more on the judge and jury than the AG's rhetoric. As for the likely outcome, Fishman said the NRA will likely end up with a court-appointed overseer in charge of vetting its financial decisions. He said the overseer could also force reform on the group's 76-member board and its opaque bylaws. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss the Hawaiian Supreme Court ruling putting the "Spirit of Aloha" above gun rights.Special Guest: James Fishman.

This week, we're changing pace a little bit. We tend to interview subject matter experts on whatever the biggest story of the week is. But with the election in full swing, I want to make sure we're paying attention to that. And I think it's especially important to take a look at those gun owners who don't necessarily fit into traditional partisan boxes, especially since that group appears to have grown over the past several years. That's why when I saw a short but interesting profile of Ben Beauchemin in a New York Times report during the lead-up to the New Hampshire primary, I thought it would be good to interview him. Luckily, he agreed to come on. Ben owns a gun shop and custom AR-building business in New Hampshire, which might seem like a pretty easy indicator of his politics. But his beliefs don't necessarily line up perfectly with either party. And he's grown increasingly disillusioned with the political choices they offer up. He said it would be difficult for him to vote for President Joe Biden because of his pursuit of new gun restrictions. But he'd also have trouble voting for former president Donald Trump for a myriad of other reasons. And he isn't sold on former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley either. Ben also said he's been unhappy with the gun-rights movement in recent years. And he gave his view of how the industry has handled the shift toward gun owners with different backgrounds and beliefs, like himself. Plus, I give my firsthand report of what it was like inside the NRA's corruption trial up in New York City this week.

The NRA's corruption trial carried on last week with Wayne LaPierre taking the stand for the first time. So, I invited one of the best gunwriters in the country on the show to talk about it. Cam Edwards is not only the editor of Bearing Arms, but he's a former NRA News and NRATV host. That means he worked for Ackerman McQueen, which is the contractor at the center of the NRA corruption allegations. That gave him some special insight into how the relationship between the two sides. Cam was willing to be very candid about what he saw during his years at the organization. He said sometimes there were signs of outrageous spending, but he said those in the lower levels of each side didn't know about the kind of mismanagement LaPierre and others had admitted to in court. He decried the way high-level executives wasted NRA money on their own personal expenses. He pointed to former NRA CFO Woody Philips using the group's funds to commute from Texas to Virginia. He said he would often forgo reimbursement for legitimate business expenses when working on behalf of the NRA and never dreamed of using NRA funds for his commute after he moved several hours from the office he broadcast from. Cam said he knew many Ackerman and NRA employees who were as reserved in their expense accounting as he was because they believed in the group's mission. He said they also understood that the bulk of the NRA's money came from regular members giving money that was often a not insignificant part of their family budgets. He argued the corruption that ran rampant at the NRA was unacceptable and things need to change. But he also said the NRA is one of the most important institutions in the gun-rights movement and needs to be saved. Plus, I talk about my time at SHOT Show with Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and the effect of the Biden Administration's pause on gun exports.Special Guest: Cam Edwards.

This week, we are discussing a number of legal developments. So, we've got one of the preeminent pro-gun legal minds on the show. Mark W. Smith, host of the Four Boxes Diner and member of the Supreme Court bar, joins me to talk about some complicated but fascinating cases. First and foremost, Smith explains why the case against Maryland's "assault weapons" ban has been moved on to be heard before the full Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals without the lower court panel that already held arguments issuing any decision. Smith predicted that might happen. He said it was done to try and delay the case further. He argued the intent was to keep the Supreme Court from getting ahold of the case and potentially overturning the ban. Smith said that tactic was becoming more common among liberal-leaning courts in the wake of the Supreme Court's landmark Bruen decision. But he also explained the Court may take up an AR ban case sooner than later anyway. He said it doesn't even necessarily need a circuit split, which is unlikely to happen anytime soon, to weigh in on the case. Smith also weighed in on the Department of Justice's surprising brief in the NRA's First Amendment case at the Supreme Court. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about how a board member's letter brought the NRA's internal turmoil back out into the open.Special Guest: Mark W. Smith.

The National Rifle Association's corruption trial in New York began this week, and we have the first witness called in the case on the show with us. Rocky Marshall is a former NRA board member and the first to receive votes for executive vice president against Wayne LaPierre in decades. He has also been a vocal critic of LaPierre, other key members of leadership, and outside counsel Bill Brewer. He blames their mismanagement and misconduct for the NRA's current downward spiral. Marshall laid out the questions he was asked during his testimony. The questions were wide-ranging, and he was on the stand for over an hour. He explained his view of where the prosecution is going as well as where the NRA's defense is headed. He also talked about his decision to run for the board again. He's qualified for the ballot alongside three other reform candidates. Marshall said people are underestimating how important the NRA is to the gun-rights movement and argued it's still possible to fix things from the inside. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss the whiplash Californians must feel as gun carry was made lawful again by a federal court ruling.Special Guest: Rocky Marshall.

This week, we're discussing some of the incongruities that make it so difficult for gun-rights advocates to beat new gun restrictions even after the Supreme Court's Bruen ruling. To do that, I got a leading Second Amendment scholar to join the show. Robert Leider, an associate professor at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia School of Law, explains why even broad gun restrictions continue to make it into law, and challenges have been less successful than many might have expected. He lays out the "asymmetry of legal liability" at the center of the dynamic. Leider argues lawmakers, like the ones behind California's expansive new "gun-free" zones, are engaging in what he calls "loopholing." He said they are attempting to disregard the Supreme Court's purpose in Bruen by finding ways to create the same effect as the laws it declared unconstitutional by using slightly different tactics. He argued there are some ways to address this beyond normal challenges, such as removing qualified immunity protections for those enforcing the new laws. But he also said gun-rights advocates are relying too much on court action in their push against new restrictions. Enforcement of California's new law has been barred again since we recorded the show, but Leider argued the outcome of the fight over the preliminary injunction is not nearly as important as people make it out to be. Plus, I explain the implications of Wayne LaPierre stepping down as head of the NRA.Special Guest: Robert Leider.

This week, we're looking at a federal judge's ruling against the Golden State's latest "gun-free zones." So, we've got one of the lawyers who won the case on to explain it. Kostas Moros, who represented the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA), joins the show to recount his arguments and the judge's decision. The decision was a total victory for Moros and the plaintiffs. The judge enjoined all of the challenged sensitive places restrictions. He even went a bit beyond what the plaintiffs asked for and struck down the parking lot ban associated with many of those places. Moros argues the judge, in contrast with an opposing decision out of the Second Circuit on a similar New York law, used the proper analysis when approaching the question of where guns can be banned by default. He said many of the locations existed at the time of the Founding but had no such bans. Under the Supreme Court's Bruen decision, he said that means the modern regulation can't stand. The judge didn't stay his order. However, the day after we recorded the podcast, an appeals panel did. So, California's law will go into effect on January 1st as the case against it continues to unfold. But Moros said he and CRPA will keep fighting it as long as necessary to win. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss our exclusive story on how Hawaiians are effectively barred from buying guns for the next few weeks.Special Guest: Kostas Moros.

This week's episode is a bit different than normal. I'm speaking with Mike Spies from The Trace about his latest article. But, unlike a regular episode, this story impacts me personally. The subject of Mike's piece was Bob Owens. Bob was a gun-rights writer, but, more importantly, he was also a good friend of mine. Unfortunately, like many other Americans, Bob took his life several years ago. Mike agreed to come on the podcast to talk about Bob and gun suicide. It was honestly a difficult conversation to have. But I think we were able to be frank, and I believe it was constructive. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss the leaked document we published showing the Biden Admin's plan to curtail gun exports.Special Guest: Mike Spies.

This week, we're taking a look at record gun sales from a different point of view. The spike in new gun owners seen from 2020 through 2022 is one we've spent a lot of time examining because it's very likely to have a significant impact on American society, culture, and politics. Gun owners generally see the addition of millions more Americans to their ranks as a positive thing, even while understanding uncertainty is what likely drove many of them to the store. But Discourse Magazine editor David Masci wrote a piece recently noting the straightforward problem of high gun sales in an era where sales have come to serve as a kind of chaos meter. He joins the show to discuss the concerning idea that more people are buying guns because more people are feeling insecure in America. He argued that even if you believe in gun rights, as he does, that trend should be worrying. We have a discussion about this particular implication of the recent shift in gun culture from a hunting-first mindset to a self-defense one. And we talk about the overarching factors that have led American society to this point, both good and bad. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I examine the Supreme Court's recent refusal to grant emergency relief to gun-rights plaintiffs.Special Guest: David Masci.

NBC News recently released one of the most impactful polls on gun ownership in America. So, it's time to take a deep dive into what it tells us. Who better to do that with than one of the analysts who actually conducted the poll? That's why we have Micah Roberts of Public Opinion Strategies on the show this week. He and his company run surveys for NBC, CNBC, and a number of political operations. He said the biggest takeaway from the latest NBC poll on guns was the substantial spike in ownership, especially among Democrats and suburban voters. He noted gun ownership has increased ten points in just ten years, which he argued is highly unusual because gun ownership is a trait that tends not to swing much over time. He also pointed out the remarkable 17-point increase in gun ownership among Black Americans. Roberts explained how the poll found, like many others before it, that gun ownership has a significant effect on how people view gun control. Gun owners, as you might expect, are less likely to support new gun restrictions. So, the influx of new gun owners could shape the nation's gun politics. However, he also identified a surprising trend. Democrats have seen the greatest increase in gun ownership since the poll started. But they've also seen the greatest increase in concern the government won't do enough to restrict access to guns. He said there is still an identifiable difference in how Democrats view guns based on whether they own one, but partisanship appears to have a greater effect on those views. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about the failed Senate "assault weapons" ban vote.Special Guest: Micah Roberts.

We're back after our Thanksgiving break, and we've got some big news out of Maryland. Not only was the state's pistol purchase law ruled unconstitutional, but the gun-carry restrictions imposed by the state's largest county were blocked too. Mark Pennak was at the center of both cases, which is why we've got him on the show this week. He's the president of Maryland Shall Issue and its lead litigator as well. He outlined the gun-rights group's arguments in both cases and how the two judges came down on them. He said the state didn't have the historical backing needed to justify their handgun restrictions, and Montgomery County effectively admitted in court they were trying to outright ban gun carry. But he said his group is ready to fight on in case either appeal the decisions. He also responded to a question raised in the dissent in the handgun case. He unpacked the idea that pistol purchase permits should be allowed to stand if they work like gun-carry permits work. He argued that's not the right message to take away from Bruen or its concurrences. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I dissect the new attempt to rebrand AR-15 bans in the Senate.Special Guest: Mark Pennak.

This week, we're discussing The Washington Post's controversial decision to publish graphic images from certain mass killings. That's why I reached out to Cam Edwards, editor of Bearing Arms and longtime newsman, to give his opinion on the story and discuss mine as well. Cam recently interviewed Parkland father Ryan Petty about The Post's decision and how some families have reacted to it. He said Petty and several other families were disturbed by The Post publishing the images, especially since not everyone affected was directly contacted by the paper. Cam argued that The Post's decision to selectively publish only pictures from mass shootings that featured AR-15s made the effort transparently political. We discussed how pictures from other mass killings are almost certainly equally disturbing. But The Post singled out AR-15s as part of a clear effort to get those particular guns banned, something that was underlined by an editorial published alongside the pictures. Cam said he didn't view The Post's efforts as journalism. Instead, he argued the paper was engaged in direct activism. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about the strange reasoning a federal judge used to uphold Colorado's gun waiting period.Special Guest: Cam Edwards.

The Supreme Court just finished oral arguments in its latest Second Amendment case. So, this week on the show, we've got scholar David Kopel with us to give his perspective on the arguments made and the questions asked by the Justices in United States v. Rahimi. Kopel was on the show about a month ago describing his brief in the case. And the issue in that brief came up in oral arguments. Kopel reacts to the discussion around the more problematic section of the federal law that bars those subject to domestic violence restraining orders from owning guns. He also gave his view on the government retreating from the idea that anyone who isn't "law-abiding" or "responsible" can be disarmed. Kopel said that retreat was significant and could have implications for other Second Amendment cases coming down the line. At the same time, he said Rahimi's lawyer had to make his own retreats and the Justices seemed unsympathetic to his overarching argument. Kopel predicted the Court would probably release its ruling before the summer and he expected it would uphold the ban. But he said the details of the ruling are harder to predict. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss the massive upswing in Israeli civilian gun ownership after the October 7th attacks.Special Guest: David Kopel.

This week, we're examining some of the failures that led to the worst mass shooting in Maine's history. Despite making multiple threats, hearing voices, and being committed to a mental institution; the shooter was about to obtain and keep his guns. Federal law bars anyone who was involuntarily committed from possessing firearms, and Maine has a version of the so-called red flag laws he should've qualified. So, why was he able to carry out the attack with guns he shouldn't have legally had? To help answer that question and give expert insight into how these laws work in practice, we have Bates College Professor Michael Rocque on the show this week. Rocque has spent years studying mass shootings. He's also researched red flag laws and is very familiar with how Maine's law works. Rocque argued the problem seems to have been both a breakdown in communication, perhaps between the multiple different layers of authority, and follow-through by law enforcement. He said multiple people tried to do the right thing in expressing their serious concerns about the shooter's mental health. However, unfortunately, not everyone did everything needed to ensure he wasn't able to pull off his attack. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss Ruger's continued sales slide.Special Guest: Michael Rocque.

This week, we're looking ahead at Virginia's off-year elections. Governor Glenn Youngkin (R.) is halfway through his first term, and now the entire state legislature is up for election. Republicans currently have a four-vote majority in the House of Delegates, while Democrats have a two-vote majority in the Senate. That's led to very little movement on gun policy since the Democrats lost their trifecta after passing universal background checks, a one-gun-a-month limit, a "red flag" law, local gun-free zones, and other restrictions in 2020. The outcome of the election will either preserve the status quo or potentially lead to the repeal of at least some restrictions. That's why we have Virginia Citizen Defense League (VCDL) president Philip Van Cleave on the show to tell us how his group sees things unfolding. Van Cleave said VCDL is working to build enthusiasm among gun voters and get them out to the polls early. He admitted there was some concern about how motivated gun owners are in this election, in part because the threat of new gun-control laws is limited. Still, he believes gun-rights advocates should be able to pull out a win and pressure Republicans into repealing most or maybe even all of the 2020 restrictions. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss the latest updates on the mentally ill mass shooter in Maine.Special Guest: Philip Van Cleave.

This week, we're discussing how the unprecedented terror attacks in Israel have motivated Jewish people in America to seek out firearms. Our guest is a longtime Jewish gun-rights advocate who lives in Texas. Yehuda Remer, who goes by The Pew Pew Jew, joins the show to detail the incredible increase in demand for guns and training he's seen from people in his community. He said the influx has been unlike anything he's experienced. Remer said the number of people he's had reaching out to him and, importantly, following through on their desire to obtain guns is leaps and bounds beyond any previous high-profile anti-Semitic attack. He said he believes the fallout from the Hamas killings could be creating a sea change in how American Jews feel about being armed. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss the federal ruling striking down California's AR-15 ban.Special Guest: Yehuda Remer.

This week, we're turning our attention back to the Supreme Court. It is deciding the first gun case since its landmark decision last year. And we have one of the most influential Second Amendment scholars in the country on the show to discuss it. David Kopel joins the podcast to explain his amicus brief in United States v. Rahimi. He is one of the most accomplished scholars on the topic. His work has been cited in countless federal court decisions and all of the Supreme Court's major Second Amendment rulings. In Rahimi, Kopel argued the federal law barring those under domestic violence restraining orders from owning guns is unconstitutional. He said the problem lies in a provision that doesn't require any finding that the subject of the restraining order is dangerous. But he also noted the problem could be fixed with a single word being changed. He argued Rahimi is the kind of person who should be barred from owning guns. However, he said the law doesn't pass the Court's history and tradition test as it is currently written. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I explain how Israel is loosening its gun laws in the wake of terror attacks.Special Guest: David Kopel.

This week, we're taking an in-depth look at a new player in the gun politics space. Although, the main reason this group is worth paying attention to is that they aren't new to being an influential gun group. The United States Concealed Carry Association (USCCA) has been a significant presence in concealed-carry insurance and firearms training for a decade. They created a Super PAC two years ago as their first foray into organized political activism, and now they've followed that up by forming a new 501(c)(4) non-profit. Katie Pointer Baney, the head of the new Action Fund, joins the show to give us insight into what she has planned. The decline of the NRA has left a sizeable hole in the gun-rights movement, but Baney said calls from USCCA members to get more involved in politics were the main motivator for creating the new group. She said the plan is to focus on training activists rather than buying ads or filing lawsuits. Targeting millions of Americans of all different stripes and backgrounds who have become gun owners in the past three years is how the Action Fund will try to differentiate itself from other efforts. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about a federal judge finding braced pistols are "in common use" and protected by the Second Amendment.Special Guest: Katie Pointer Baney.

This week, we're looking back at the Golden State. It's once again in the news because a federal judge has found one of its strict gun-control laws unconstitutional. This time, it was the ban on magazines that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. So, we decided to bring on the head of the group that beat the ban. California Rifle and Pistol Association President Chuck Michel gave us his insight into the case. He said the outcome was expected because this was effectively a retread. Duncan v. Bonta was initially decided in favor of the gun-rights plaintiffs only for it to be reversed by an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals only for the Supreme Court to grant, vacate, and remand that ruling. The case is the first of those remanded by the High Court in the wake of the Bruen decision to reach a ruling. That ruling accelerates the magazine ban issue back up the chain in what will likely end with another Supreme Court showdown. Of course, as California's magazine ban was being tossed, Governor Gavin Newsom (D.) signed new restrictions on gun carry and a sin tax on firearms and ammunition. Michel explains the new laws and how his group has already filed challenges to them. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss the Trump Campaign backtracking on claims he bought a gun while under felony indictment after finding out it would be illegal.

This week, we're looking at a new AI product that promises to do what ChatGPT can't: talk to you about building guns. The cleverly named GatGPT went into beta this week. I got an early look at it. And, now, we're having the head of the company behind it on the show to explain why they created it. Defense Distrubuted's Cody Wilson said the end goal is to build an alternative to big tech initiatives in search and advertising. He argued AI could be a consequential tool in that effort. He said the kind of censorship ChatGPT has been saddled with, which keeps it from talking about guns and other topics its parent company OpenAI views as controversial, is holding back the mainstream efforts and gives GatGPT a potential edge. However, it does still suffer from some of the same accuracy issues other major AIs struggle with. Wilson said they hope to continuously improve GatGPT with beta testers and high-quality data from sections of the online firearms community. Wilson has garnered media attention and controversy since he first printed a gun back in 2013. He managed to retain his gun rights and take back control of Defense Distributed despite pleading guilty to a sex crime in 2018. His latest move shows he's remained as media savvy and controversial as ever, though. Unlike many other AI startups, Wilson said he isn't looking to sell hype and bring in investors at unrealistic valuations. But he is hoping to create a viable business model around the uncensored AI model. One he hopes can benefit the entire firearms industry, which he says has been "ghettoized" by large tech platforms for over a decade. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss USCCA's latest foray into the political realm.Special Guest: Cody Wilson.

The emergency gun-carry ban implemented by New Mexico's governor has been blocked by a federal judge. This week on the show, we have one of the men responsible for securing that order. Adam Kraut is the Second Amendment Foundation's Executive Director. They were one of at least five groups to successfully challenge Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham's (D.) order. He said the case is simple. The order was clearly an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment, especially given the Supreme Court recently ruled that gun carry is specifically protected just last year. Governor Lujan Grisham pulled back on the total ban late this week in a potential attempt to short-circuit the case against her, but Kraut explained the legal strategy his group is using to keep the case alive. Plus, I describe being stuck in the middle of a manhunt for an escaped murderer. And Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman discusses the political fallout from Lujan Grisham's failed order.Special Guest: Adam Kraut.

This week, we're talking about the importance of hunting. In a bit of a surprise move, The Atlantic published a superb article explaining why America needs hunting more than many might imagine. So, I thought it would be a good idea to have the author of the piece on. That's why Andrew Exum is joining the show. He describes the role that hunting plays in conserving American wildlife. He notes that it's not just important for wildlife population control either. Taxes on guns, ammunition, and hunting license fees are also a primary contributor to conservation funding. Andrew describes his background as a veteran and former Department of Defense official from the South who now lives in Washington, D.C. but still hunts regularly. We also discuss why he views guns like the AR-15 very differently from hunting rifles, and he responds to some common critiques of that worldview. He then describes his view that hunting is also an important component of sustainable living. And he gave me some advice as me and my girlfriend prepare to take our first hunter safety course later this month. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about Boston doubling down on delaying gun-carry permits.Special Guest: Andrew Exum.

This week, President Joe Biden announced new executive action aimed at tightening gun laws. This time, he wants to expand who must get a license to legally sell used guns. So, I brought back Bearing Arms editor Cam Edwards to review the ATF's proposed rule. We go over the new details of what the agency says will trigger the license requirement. Much of the rule codifies what the ATF has claimed for years about who might be prosecuted for selling guns without a license. But Cam notes the agency is seeking to expand its authority, perhaps beyond what's allowed under the law, even if it's claiming it will only use that power sparingly. He said the recent increase in "zero-tolerance" enforcement against licensed dealers could signal bad news for regular people the ATF decides need one too. The Biden Administration has pointed to changes made to the licensing law in the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act as justification for the new rule. Cam said he's skeptical that will hold up in court where the other recent Biden executive gun actions have had trouble. But we talk about why things might go differently this time. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about how Tennessee shows "red flag" laws have hit a political ceiling.Special Guest: Cam Edwards.

This week, we have Professor Dru Stevenson of the South Texas College of Law on the show to give his analysis of the Supreme Court's latest Second Amendment case. A few weeks back, we had pro-gun author and lawyer Mark Smith on to give his view of United States v. Rahimi. But I want to make sure we offer you all a wide variety of perspectives on where the case is headed. Stevenson certainly comes from a very different point of view, and he has an intimate knowledge of the case. He joined a brief in the case alongside other professors and a gun-control group. They argued the domestic violence restraining order gun ban should be upheld. However, they went much further and argued both Bruen AND Heller should be overturned as well. Stevenson and I discuss the reasons why he thinks the Court's view of the Second Amendment as guaranteeing an individual right to keep and bear arms is wrong. We go through the common arguments and discuss their validity. But Stevenson also acknowledged the Court is very, very unlikely to adopt his point of view. He said the brief was part of a long-term effort to build the foundation for completely undoing the Court's gun jurisprudence at some point down the line. In the meantime, he gave his thoughts on where a majority of justices might actually come down in this case. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about the lack of gun policy mentions during the first Republican primary debate.Special Guest: Dru Stevenson.

It has been a little while since we've done a Q&A podcast. So, we decided to take some questions from Reload Members for this week's episode. And we got a lot of great questions. I'm not sure if buying a Reload Membership makes somebody smarter or if only smart people buy Reload Memberships, but, either way, we always seem to get really great questions during these Q&As. This time was no different. We received shrewd questions on a variety of topics. Lots of members wanted to know about the timing of many of the gun cases that have made their way up the federal court system since Bruen was handed down last year. They also wanted to know what cases the Supreme Court is likely to take up. Will SCOTUS accept one of the "assault weapons" ban cases? What about the pistol brace ban? Also, what's going on with weed and guns? Where is that combination from a legal standpoint? And what are we seeing from all those new gun owners that have come into the fold over the last few years? Are the predictions of their huge impact panning out? How can we even tell? There were lots of other great questions too. So, make sure you listen to the full show.

This week, we're talking with one of the most prolific independent gun litigators in the country. Alan Beck set about successfully undoing the country's stun gun bans in the wake of the Supreme Court's 2016 Caetano ruling. He also challenged Hawaii's effective ban on gun carry in Young. Now, he's back taking on the Aloha State's strict gun laws in the wake of 2022's Bruen. And he's winning. This week alone he notched victories in two different cases against Hawaii. First, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled the state's total ban on butterfly knives violates the Second Amendment. Then a federal judge appointed by Barack Obama found Hawaii's post-Bruen "sensitive places" gun-carry restrictions, including in restaurants, also run afoul of the Second Amendment. Beck explains the ins and outs of those rulings as well as their significant implications for future cases in Hawaii and beyond. Then he describes a new suit he just filed against a Hawaii county trying to force concealed-carry permit applicants to waive nearly all of their privacy rights, including what they've told their lawyers or even priests. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss the Supreme Court's intervention into the "ghost gun" case.Special Guest: Alan Beck.

The last domino to fall in President Joe Biden's gun agenda was toppled by a Fifth Circuit panel. So, we're bringing one of the best political writers in the country. Nationals Review's Charles Cooke is one of the top conservative analysts on both the legal and political side of guns in America. He joins the show to talk about why Biden's pistol-brace ban was tossed. Hint: It wasn't because of the Second Amendment. Instead, Cooke noted the courts have objected to the ATF overstepping its bounds when creating Biden's gun policies. He said that fact makes it very likely the Supreme Court would object on the same grounds. That's because, as presidents from across the political spectrum have taken to expanding the power of executive agencies, the Court has begun to pair back agency overreach. Cooke argued the losing streak is bad for President Biden's reelection. Despite what's shaping up to be an unprecedented 2024 election, which seems likely to include bump stock ban originator Donald Trump, Cooke said the constitutionally-deficient policies will drag Biden down. Especially because the majority of people who've heard about them are the ones they negatively affect. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about how a Memphis school's security procedures stopped a mass shooting.Special Guest: Charles Cooke.

This week, we're looking at a recent study that found a substantial number of gun owners may be unwilling to tell pollsters they own guns. To help illuminate some of the significant implications of the research, we have Reason Magazine's JD Tuccille joining us. He did a great piece on the study over at Reason and had several important insights. For one, he said the study may undercut almost everything we think we know about guns in America. After all, it raised the possibility that as many as half of the people who told the researchers they didn't own a firearm really did. If that's the case, our view of gun ownership has been far too limited. Tuccille also explained some major reasons gun owners may not want to tell researchers about their firearms. And there are several. Everything from concerns over the government getting ahold of the information to distrusting the motivations of academics at liberal universities. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss the NYPD withholding gun permits even after the Supreme Court's latest Second Amendment ruling. And I talk about how the National Journalism Center's range day went (hint: pretty great).Special Guest: JD Tuccille.

This week, we're taking a close look at a new study that suggests showing kids a minute-long video stops them from handling a gun while unsupervised. We are lucky enough to have Ohio State University PHD student, and lead author of the study, Sophie Kjaervik with us for this episode. She explained that kids in her experiment that watched a short gun safety video featuring a uniformed police officer were far less likely to pick up a real, but disabled, gun in a controlled setting than kids shown a car safety video with the same cop. And the difference was significant. Kjaervik explained in depth how the researchers recruited the kids in the study, how they decided who watched which video, how they staged the guns, how they monitored the children, and collected data. She also noted there were a few additional factors that signaled a kid would be less likely to handle the guns they found. Those included a dislike for guns, but also parents who owned guns and experience with some other form of gun safety training beforehand. Overall, Kjaervik said the experiment showed that gun-safety videos are a viable way to prevent accidental shootings. But it also showed how efforts like the NRA's Eddie Eagle program could be improved. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I examine the ruling upholding San Jose's gun ownership tax and insurance mandate.Special Guest: Sophie Kjaervik.

This week, we're taking a closer look at the data that indicates the murder rate is finally on a downward slope. And there's no better guest to have than the man who has documented the decline. Crime analyst Jeff Asher joins the show to give us insight into his methodology for tracking murder across the country. His numbers show what could be a historic reversal of the recent murder spike. The data from over 100 city police departments indicate murder may be down as much as 10 percent. But Asher also explains the limitations of real-time data as well as the continuing problems with the FBI's data collection. Still, he says trends in even a few cities can be broadly predictive nationwide. And what he's seeing is backed up by other measures as well. Of course, not every city is improving, and Asher highlights standout cities going in either direction. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about the downturn in gun sales. And we have another member segment!

The Supreme Court just agreed to take up a brand new Second Amendment case. So, we've got author and member of the Supreme Court bar Mark W. Smith on the show this week. Smith, who also hosts the Four Boxes Diner YouTube channel, joins to talk about the ins and outs of United States v. Rahimi. The Supreme Court will have to decide whether the Second Amendment protects the right of those subject to a domestic violence restraining order to own guns. And, as Smith notes, it will be doing so for one of the least sympathetic defendants imaginable because Rahimi is the suspect in a long list of violent crimes. That means the Court could rule to uphold the restriction, according to Smith. And that's why, he argues, the case was appealed straight up to the Supreme Court by Attorney General Merrick Garland even though there was another level of appeal he could have gone to first. Still, Smith isn't convinced the case is that cut and dry. He argued the Court may well find the lower bar of evidence required to issue a restraining order compared to obtaining a criminal conviction could cause enough justices to turn against the restriction. And he said the Court has shown it is not as sensitive to public criticism as in previous years. He said the decision to take this case to SCOTUS may backfire on Garland, but also admitted it's not clear where the Court will come down. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about President Biden's "ghost gun" ban being vacated. And I discuss my continued frustrations with trying to renew my concealed carry permit.Special Guest: Mark W. Smith.