The Weekly Reload Podcast

This week, we're examining a new ruling in favor of New York's ban on carrying a concealed gun in places of worship. It's a somewhat surprising decision that comes after the state already abandoned the total ban and several other judges have struck it down. So, the whole situation is a bit confusing. That's why we have New York State Jewish Gun Club member Rabbi Tzvi Hershel Goldstein on the show. He is directly affected by the new ruling, and his group helped fund the case against it. He argues the ban on worshipers carrying at synagogue violates not just his Second Amendment rights but his First Amendment rights too. He said the group plans to appeal the decision and expects to win at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, though the slower pace of this case may result in the issue being decided before they get there. Still, Goldstein said the club is willing to take the case all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. But that court will have to decide another gun case first. Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about the breaking news that the Supreme Court has agreed to take a new Second Amendment case. We go over the details of the case and try to read some tea leaves on where the Court may come down.

This week, we're looking closely at the deal Hunter Biden struck with federal prosecutors over his 2018 gun purchase while he was using illicit drugs. That's why I brought on a former federal prosecutor and current criminal defense attorney Ken White. He's also a podcast host and writes under the name Popehat. So, he's able to explain the ins and outs of the indictment and give some analysis of the politics of it all too. White noted that the felony charge Hunter struck a deal on is rarely pursued as a standalone charge. It's also almost never punished with the maximum possible sentence. He said the pretrial diversion program Hunter and prosecutors agreed to, which includes a lifetime ban on gun ownership, is not an unheard-of consequence for somebody without previous convictions on their record. He said the charge may not have been brought against other defendants under similar circumstances. But he agreed Hunter may have forced the prosecutors' hands by publicizing his drug use through a book and media tour. White also noted the deal does reflect poorly on Hunter's father because the senior Biden has pursued stricter gun laws in office while his son got himself in this mess. And all of the other controversies surrounding Hunter may leave people feeling he's received special treatment even if the deal he received was reasonable for the specific charges in the case. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss the surprising failure of the pistol-brace ban repeal resolution in the Senate. And Jake tells us about a collectible gun he bought from the Civilian Marksmanship Program.Special Guest: Ken White.

This week, we're joined by the man behind the first "smart gun" that's going to come to market. Kai Kloepfer is the founder of Biofire, a company that has been getting a lot of attention since announcing it will ship a 9mm pistol with integrated biometric locks this year. He answered a wide array of different questions on smart guns and the Biofire model in particular. He explained how Biofire intertwines the operation of the firing mechanism with biometrics. Instead of using an electronic device to block a traditional trigger setup, they have eliminated the traditional system to substitute it with a fire-by-wire system. He said that was the only way they found to make the gun lock and unlock quickly enough to be useful for home defense. He also talked at length about how the company has worked to make the gun reliable--a key consideration for most gun owners that will likely determine if the company sinks or swims. He also addressed key political questions. Kloepfer said he believes his gun should be an option for consumers but never mandated. That's why he's filed an amicus letter in the case against California's handgun roster. We also talk about the unique possibilities that a fire-by-wire system opens up for things like adjustable trigger weights, shooting statistics, and even maintenance notifications. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss Congress taking on the pistol-brace ban. And I talk about the setback I just had in obtaining my DC concealed carry license.Special Guest: Kai Kloepfer.

This week, National Review's Jim Geraghty comes back to the show to give us his reaction to President Joe Biden's pistol-brace ban. As we reported first at The Reload, only a tiny fraction of the guns required to be registered actually were. Geraghty said he thinks Americans are distrustful of the government and unwilling to tell them what guns they have. He argued that effect is especially strong with Joe Biden in office given how aggressively he is trying to expand gun restrictions. That's part of the reason his gun policy approval numbers have tanked, Geraghty said. And it could affect him in a general election matchup with a pro-gun Republican. Of course, that could also drive disaffected Democrats back to his side. That is, if California Governor Gavin Newsom (D.) doesn't try to swoop in first. We discuss the possibility his new push to partially repeal the Second Amendment is actually a kind of shadow presidential campaign. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about a federal appeals court casting down on the non-violent felon gun ban.Special Guest: Jim Geraghty.

On this week's episode, The Watch's Radley Balko details the landmark decision of a Chicago judge not to allow firearm forensic experts to testify in a criminal case. Balko said the court's decision comes after years of criticism aimed at the field of forensic pattern matching. He argues many of the techniques made famous on shows like CSI have little scientific basis. Many, he said, are based on little more than the best guesses of examiners who are mainly just eyeballing evidence. He explained the idea that matching a mass-produced bullet to the mass-produced gun it was fired from, to the exclusion of all other guns, may well be impossible. Or, at the very least, we don't have advanced enough techniques to pull it off with the level of certainty you'd want for evidence that could put somebody in jail for years or even decades. Indeed, Balko noted, most examiners cited as experts in court are unwilling to even submit to outside tests of their methods. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about how far the injunctions against President Biden's pistol-brace ban extend. Jake also tells us about his latest rifle purchase, which is a bit of a throwback. And I give an update on how I'm liking the Phlster Enigma and appendix carry.Special Guest: Radley Balko.

This week, we have one of the people who inspired me to get into political writing all the way back in college. Ed Morrissey, the managing editor of Hot Air, has long been one of the most insightful conservative political analysts out there. He joins the show to break down the early days of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis's campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, especially his latest attacks on frontrunner Donald Trump's gun record. In one of his first interviews after launching his campaign, DeSantis said Trump's 2018 call to ‘take the guns first, go through due process second’ was "wrong" and "unconstitutional." DeSantis has spent months bolstering his pro-gun legislative accomplishments, and now he and his supporters are going after Trump's weak spots on guns and other policy positions. Ed said the strategy is a sound one and could pay dividends in the long run despite Trump's huge early polling lead. But he also said DeSantis would have to match that rhetorical attack with a robust ground game to have any hope of beating the former president. We also looked even further ahead at the potential general election matchup against President Joe Biden. His approval ratings have been tanking for a long while now, and Americans are particularly unhappy with how he's handled gun policy. Ed said Biden had nobody to blame but himself, especially overpromising Democrats on what kinds of gun control policies he could actually get done. Still, Ed noted those unhappy Democrats may ultimately come back and vote for him in a general election. I also give an update on how my new carry setup is evolving. I'm trying out the Phlster Enigma and modding it to try and get it as comfortable as possible, which may convince me to switch to appendix carry full-time. However, I ran into some new issues with my Sig Sauer P365 X-Macro and the red dot it came with. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I do our best to explain the latest developments with the injunctions against Biden's pistol-brace ban. (The Fifth Circuit issued a clarification that it does cover FPC members and Maxim Defense customers after we recorded the episode)Special Guest: Ed Morrissey.

This week, Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) joined the show to respond to questions about the group's finances. As I promised on the previous podcast, I asked Gottlieb about the ins and out of how the two non-profits he's a director of interact with the private entities he operates and what safeguards are in place to ensure the groups aren't being overcharged. He said SAF and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) have boards that approve the contracts with the private companies he owns, and he has no say over those decisions. He noted the relationships have been disclosed on the group's financial filings for decades, as required by law. He also attacked Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson (D.) for a year-long investigation into the group that has yet to produce any charges or legal action. He accused Ferguson of targeting the gun-rights groups because they have started several lawsuits against the state's gun laws in recent years. He compared the investigation to harassment and said they filed a civil rights suit against the state over the cost of compiling the documents they requested and the lost man-hours involved in complying with the AG's various demands. He said The Wall Street Journal, which broke the news of the investigation and raised questions about the gun group's finances, was negligent in repeating some of the accusations the AG has reportedly pursued without proper context. Gottlieb said one of the groups the paper implied he was profiting off of is actually a co-op that operates at cost. He said the other company he owns that does business with SAF and CCRKBA offers services at below-market rates. Gottlieb answered several other questions about how the groups have operated under his leadership over the years. And he gave an update on SAF's latest lawsuits against New Jersey and Maryland's latest gun-carry restrictions. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss the Supreme Court's decision not to issue an emergency injunction against an Illinois city's AR-15 ban.Special Guest: Alan Gottlieb.

We're bringing back a fan-favorite guest this week: Cam Edwards of Bearing Arms. He joins the show to discuss Tennessee's new "red flag" proposal. We talked about the major differences between Governor Bill Lee's (R.) proposal and other laws already on the books. The Tennessee proposal is one of the first to try and address many of the due process concerns raised by the other laws. But Cam argued the changes aren't enough to satisfy gun-rights advocates. He said the problem stems from the basic approach of trying to reform red flag laws, which center on temporarily confiscating firearms from those who are a danger to themselves or others, in the first place. He said that flips priorities on their head because somebody who is a threat to themselves or others needs serious mental health intervention instead of just having their guns taken away. Cam argued involuntary commitment is a better solution, and lawmakers should start from that point if they want to address the issue. We also looked at former President Donald Trump's recent comments backing his bump stock ban. Cam said Trump's doubling down on the ban leaves him vulnerable to his right on gun policy. He said it makes sense for opponents to try and exploit that opening, as Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R.) seems to be positioning himself to do. But he also noted Trump has seen pretty resilient support from gun voters to this point and may be able to keep that advantage despite his continued support for the bump stock ban. Reload Member Frank Phillips also joined the show this week in a member segment where we discussed his hobby of collecting guns and suppressors. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss federal court rulings upholding the gun ban for those involuntarily committed and striking down the sales ban for adults under 21.Special Guest: Cam Edwards.

The Supreme Court is back in the spotlight because it showed a sign it might soon act on so-called assault weapons bans. But the sign comes in the form of a complex legal maneuver that needs some explaining. That's why we have author and pro-gun lawyer Mark W. Smith on the show to suss out exactly what's going on and what it means. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who oversees the Seventh Circuit, asked Naperville, Illinois, to defend its ban on AR-15s and similar firearms against an emergency request to block the law. Smith said that means she, and probably other members of the Court, may take the rare step of entering an emergency injunction. However, he said that likely depends on what happens with a sister case against Illinois' statewide ban. Smith argued the common defenses of the bans are lacking. He said the Heller standard that guns in "common use for lawful purposes" can't be banned is the proper way to judge these cases. And he said it is clear AR-15s and the other firearms targetted by assault weapons bans are popular enough to be considered in "common use." We also talk about Smith's new book Disarmed: What the Ukraine War Teaches Americans About the Right to Bear Arms. He explains why he thinks Ukraine made significant missteps in the lead-up to the Russian invasion by not arming civilians at large until just before hostilities broke out. But he argues Ukraine's newly-armed populous has helped repel the invaders, just as America's did several centuries ago. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss the effects of Colorado's decade-long push to tighten its gun laws.Special Guest: Mark W. Smith.

Another federal judge ruled on Friday that so-called assault weapons bans likely violate the Second Amendment. So, the Illinois ban is blocked for now. But Washington's was just signed. And Delaware's 2022 ban is still standing. Elsewhere, bans on the popular guns, including the AR-15, have been forestalled by political reality. Independence Institute's David Kopel understands the fight well having just gone through it in his home state of Colorado, where Democrats who control the government weren't able to push a ban over the finish line. But he has also filed many court briefs and written even more books or academic papers on the topic from a pro-gun point of view. He joins the show to discuss the political and legal landscape in the fight over assault weapons bans. What stopped Colorado's ban from going forward? Why has there been a sudden resurgence in blue states pushing for the bans? What is the legal argument against them? What is the state of the numerous lawsuits against AR-15 bans across the country? And, most importantly, will the Supreme Court take up an assault weapons ban case soon? If so, what are they likely to decide? Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss the wide-reaching implications of the bump stock ban being stuck down by another federal appeals court.Special Guest: David Kopel.

The NRA's 2023 Annual Meeting was last week. The group was resurgent, and leadership got a mostly warm welcome. That doesn't mean the NRA's problems are solved. To the contrary, it still seems to be bleeding membership revenue at the same time it racks up increasing legal bills from dealing with multiple corruption suits over allegations of financial impropriety. That's why we have Frank Tait, who just finished his term on the NRA board, on the show this week. Tait, who joined the board as a vocal critic of Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, admitted attempts to reform the group from within have failed. He responded to several of the most common defenses of LaPierre, often employed by other members of the board, and explained why he believes the organization is in dire trouble. He also talked about his time on the board. He said NRA staff made it very difficult for board members to access key documents. He also described how the 76-member board functions in practice, saying a small fraction of the board holds the majority of the decision-making power. Tait also said he doesn't plan to run for re-election in large part because he no longer sees a viable path to changing leadership from the inside. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss what Colorado's failure to pass an "assault weapons" ban means for the policy's recent momentum.Special Guest: Frank Tait.

The beginning of the week featured another horrible mass shooting in America. This time at a bank in Louisville, Kentucky. That's why I wanted to bring on one of the leading experts currently studying mass shootings. Metro State University Professor James Densley is one of the co-founders of The Violence Project, which has the most detailed and comprehensive database of mass shootings dating back to 1966. He is also the co-author of the book by the same name that outlines potential real-world solutions to the phenomenon. Professor Densley explained why he believes the count they use, which only includes public attacks where four or more people are killed for reasons unrelated to other criminal conduct, gives the most accurate understanding of mass shootings. He said it's important to properly define terms when you're attempting to seriously study a problem and identify trends so you can craft solutions. He laid out some of the common patterns seen in the lives of mass shooters before they carry out their attacks. For instance, he said most shooters have a long history of abuse and trauma before they decide to do the unthinkable. And the shootings almost always follow an inciting incident that sends the shooter into a crisis state. Densley argued that a potential attacker could be "off-ramped" at any point along that path, whether it's after they first experience abuse or after they begin experiencing an inciting crisis. What's necessary is for those who recognize the warning signs to step in and do something to help. And that resources to help are made available and known to those looking to carry out that kind of intervention. But those aren't the only interventions Densley believes are necessary. He said firearms restrictions of some kind should be part of the equation as well, especially for those showing warning signs they may be a threat to themselves or others. We go back and forth on why gun-rights advocates and gun owners are not as open to those ideas as Densley would like them to be. Ultimately, Densley said he believes mass shootings are not an inevitability and can be prevented through action on the individual and societal level--even if not everyone agrees on every aspect of the solutions he proposes. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss a new win in court for marijuana users who want to own guns.Special Guest: James Densley.

It's time for another Q&A podcast episode! This week, we're taking some of the best questions from Reload Members. Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman joins me to offer up our best answers to those questions. And those questions covered all sorts of topics. One member asked how realistic confiscation of at least some firearms, such as AR-15s, is and what protections against the federal government implementing such a policy exists. Another asked about the long-term prospects for the gun-rights movement, especially in blue states. We also explain how circuit splits work and discuss the weakness of the "common use" standard at the center of Heller and Bruen. I also give my point of view on some of the language often employed in media coverage of the AR-15.

This week, we're discussing the tremendous effect the Supreme Court's Bruen decision has had on the lower courts in a few short months. Jake Charles, an associate professor at Pepperdine University, joins the show to give us an overview of his latest paper. In it, he comprehensively breaks down how many Second Amendment claims have been successful thus far and which ones have performed best. With 31 successful claims, the post-Bruen era has seen far more decisions against gun laws than the immediate aftermath of 2008's Heller decision. Charles said he wasn't surprised by how much of an effect Bruen has had, given the nature of the test it lays down. But he was surprised by the success rates of different challenges, though. While many carry restrictions have been struck down on a consistent basis, cases against unlawful uses of firearms or prohibited person prohibitions have seen little success. We also discuss some of the critiques Charles has of the Bruen standard generally. He explains his view that the Court forstalling the use of anything but historical laws is too restrictive. And he argues the historical test is so far underbaked, which he claims has led to confusion among lower courts. Charles responds to common pro-gun arguments that critics of Bruen are mostly upset with the standard because there simply weren't many gun regulations at the founding, which limits what can be considered Constitutional today. And he explains why he believes the Court's approach to analysis by analogue is not flexible enough to deal with modern problems the founders didn't face. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Charles and I talk about a federal judge upholding Delaware's "assault weapons" ban despite finding the guns are in "common use" for self-defense.Special Guest: Jake Charles.

This week, California gun owners received positive news when a federal judge ruled the state's handgun restrictions are unconstitutional. So, we decided to reach out to one of the most prominent plaintiffs in the case: YouTuber Reno May. He said he is happy with the outcome of the case. He even expressed optimism that the ruling might go into effect without an appeal. Federal District Judge Judge Cormac J. Carney agreed with May and the other plaintiffs' argument that the state's "Unsafe Handgun Law" violates the Second Amendment. He found the requirement that all new models of handguns include loaded chamber indicators, magazine disconnect safeties, and microstamping were unlike anything in the historical record. Judge Carney said that the law can't stand under the Bruen standard. While the problem with California banning handguns that don't feature a theoretical technology, like Microstamping, May explained why the other two requirements were actually more challenging for gun makers to meet than they first seem. For instance, many modern guns have some kind of loaded chamber indicator, but California requires one that has a specific phrase written on it to qualify. May said the law has prevented him from buying any modern handgun from a dealer since he started buying them after 2013. He noted he and other Californians may still have to wait to buy new handguns, though, because the ruling doesn't go into effect for several more days. And he noted California is likely to appeal the verdict while asking for a stay that would delay the effect of this ruling. But he noted the odd silence from the state and gun-control supporters about the case. That gives him hope that an appeal may not be coming. May also gave us some insight into the modern pistols he plans to buy if no appeal comes. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about why a federal judge added Polymer80 to the list of companies the ATF can't go after under President Biden's "ghost gun" ban.Special Guest: Reno May.

President Joe Biden announced a set of new executive orders this week that could have wide-ranging effects. But what does his order actually do? Well, that's what we brought Amy Swearer on to explain. She's the conservative Heritage Foundation's gun policy expert who regularly testifies on Capitol Hill. She said three of the initiatives have the potential to have a severe impact on gun owners across America. The effort to broaden the requirement for those selling guns to obtain a federal license, the directive that federal agencies and the military try to add gun-control requirements to their gun acquisition contracts, and the request for the Federal Trade Commission to investigate gun company advertising could have the most significant effect. Swearer said those policies could make it much more difficult for private individuals and companies to sell guns. However, we don't yet know precisely how the administration will put President Biden's order into practice. And there are real hurdles to implementing them in the most aggressive possible approach. When it comes to changing the standard for who qualifies as being "engaged in the business" of dealing guns, the President will have to work within the legal definition set by Congress. The Department of Defense is unlikely to compromise the effectiveness of its weapons to push a backdoor gun-control regime. And the FTC doesn't have to listen to Biden's request at all. Still, Swearer argued he might push the boundaries of what's possible on all three. But this order is undoubtedly less substantial than President Biden's previous executive actions on guns. His 'ghost gun" and pistol-brace bans affect millions of Americans, potentially subjecting them to federal felon charges if they don't give up or register their affected firearms and parts. Of course, those orders are also under intense legal scrutiny. The "ghost gun" rule has already been mostly blocked, and it's very likely the pistol-brace ban will soon face the same fate. But Swearer said gun owners should remain concerned about where this new order could end up. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss North Carolina's gun advocates' latest effort to repeal the state's pistol-purchase-permit law.Special Guest: Amy Swearer.

On this week's episode, we're exploring a new effort to make firearms law and history a specific academic pursuit. Ashley Hlebinsky joins the show to tell us about the University of Wyoming's Firearms Research Center. She is the former curator of the Cody Firearms Museum who helped found the new center. She explains what she and a top law professor at the school hope to accomplish with the effort. Hlebinsky said the goal is to develop gun research as a unified topic of study. She said the center is hoping to bring scholars from around higher education to work together at events and on different projects. That includes working with other institutions, including Duke University's Center for Firearms Law. However, she said the UW center also plans to work with people, like herself, who don't have advanced degrees but have tremendous experience working with historic firearms. Hlebinsky argued museum curators, researchers, and show hosts have often amassed as much or more knowledge, often from working directly with primary sources, than those with graduate degrees. She wants to identify the best way to harness that knowledge while avoiding the common pitfalls of amateur historical work. She also addressed critics who have questioned the center accepting funding from some gun company executives. Hlebinsky said the funding wouldn't dictate what conclusions the center's work comes to. She said she had fought to keep the center's work independent, even threatening to resign when some lawmakers sought to control what the center could do. Hlebinsky also shared some of her favorite guns from her time as the curator at Cody Firearms Museum. She pointed to several guns that developed features years or even decades before they received mainstream adoption. And she talked about how video games and movies impacted attendance at the museum in interesting and unexpected ways. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about why the major credit card companies have backed away from a plan to add a merchant code for gun stores.Special Guest: Ashley Hlebinsky.

Charles Cooke is back on the show this week. The National Review senior writer is an expert on gun policy and politics. He is also a Florida Man. So, he's the perfect person to come on and talk about Governor Ron Desantis's (R.) latest push to institute new gun reforms. Cooke said Desantis's push to implement permitless gun carry and banking reforms designed to pressure financial institutions into continuing to work with gun businesses is likely to succeed. Republicans have supermajorities in both houses of the state legislature and Desantis has worked more closely with lawmakers than previous governors. So, Cooke said the bills are almost certainly going to become law by the end of the session. He argued both reforms are good policies. But, beyond the merits of the proposals, he also said the move will help Desantis in the upcoming Republican presidential primary. He said Desantis needs those pro-gun accomplishments to fend off attacks from his right on the issue. He pointed to Georgia Governor Brian Kemp and Texas Governor Greg Abbott as contenders who could credibly go after him if he doesn't get these bills through. Of course, Cooke also stacked up the potential legislative accomplishments for Desantis against former president Donald Trump's record on guns. Permitless carry and pro-gun banking reforms would give Desantis a stronger legislative record than Trump. And Trump's infamous comments expressing a desire to take troubled people's guns and have due process afterward only helps Desantis. But Trump also appointed three Supreme Court justices who were in the Bruen majority, which is clearly a major trump card. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about the California city trying to charge people $1,000 for a gun-carry permit. And Reload Member Liz Mair tells us about how guns have played a role in her life and why she comes to The Reload for gun news.Special Guest: Charles Cooke.

This week, we're examining the way that most gun-control groups count "gun violence." Kostas Moros, a gun-rights lawyer, joins the show to discuss the piece he wrote for The Reload about why the decision to include gun-related suicides in those counts is misleading. He explained that the majority of gun deaths, and usually up to two-thirds of them, are suicides. He said gun-control activists' claims about the correlation between strict gun laws and lower levels of "gun violence" don't hold water without including suicides. Moros argued states with strict gun laws often don't have lower gun murder rates or overall murder rates than their pro-gun neighbors. He cited his home state of California as a prime example of this phenomenon. Its murder rate is higher than its less restrictive neighbors to the north and only marginally better than Arizona, which has some of the least restrictive gun laws in the country. Additionally, Moros says treating gun suicides as a type of criminal violence is illogical. He argued no other forms of suicide are referred to as a kind of violence or included in violence counts for knives, rope, or anything else. He noted that guns are among the most deadly suicide techniques, and gun owners should do everything possible to mitigate the problem. He also noted that the absence or presence of guns at a societal level doesn't correlate to a country's suicide rate. The United States has by far the most civilian-owned firearms in the world, but our suicide rate is comparable to most other developed nations and much lower than countries like South Korea. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I look at the unethical way Brady United used an Aurora theater victim's family in a stunt lawsuit that left them bankrupt.Special Guest: Kostas Moros.

We're doing another unique episode this week. Instead of exploring a specific story from the week, we're taking a step back and looking at the state of the legal fight over guns. That's why I reached out to one of the best legal commentators out there: Mark W. Smith. He is an author, lawyer, and host of The Four Boxes Diner on YouTube. Smith gives us the state of play around gun restrictions in federal courts. He said there has been more significant movement from the courts in the seven months since SCOTUS handed down a decision in Bruen than there had been in the decade-plus between it and the landmark Heller decision. And he thinks things are just getting started. He believes the Supreme Court will likely take up multiple Second Amendment cases over its next term. Smith said they are likely to settle some questions around prohibited person restrictions. But he noted the Court usually takes up cases as a means to lay out best practices for deciding future cases as well. So, the justices are likely to look for cases where they can hand down a decision that applies well beyond the merits of the case. Smith also goes over some emerging arguments for how certain modern gun restrictions, such as magazine bans, can survive Bruen scrutiny and explains why he believes they don't hold water. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss Florida Governor Ron Desantis's effort to keep big banks from dropping gun companies.Special Guest: Mark W. Smith.

This week we're focused on YouTube's erratic moderation of silencers. The social media giant began deleting videos and even whole channels that featured silencers, often called suppressors, from their site a few weeks back. Then, after public outcry and an inquiry from The Reload, the company reversed course. But the damage to trust many gun creators had in the platform was already done by then. Ian McCollum, who had one of his suppressor videos from Forgotten Weapons deleted, joins the podcast to talk about the ordeal. He explains how this is not the first time YouTube has targeted gun channels with unclear policies. In fact, he said he's been dealing with these problems nearly the entire time he's been on the platform. That's why he's attempted to diversify where his content is hosted over the years. He's also taken to using alternative means for growing a sustainable income outside of YouTube in order to mitigate against the video company's impact on his ability to make the content he and his audience love. At the same time, he said he remains on YouTube because it's by far the largest platform out there and it's important to go where the audience is. He also shares some insight into what he has planned for the future of Forgotten Weapons. Both the long-term vision for the company and some hints at upcoming videos. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about how the NRA managed to lose over a million members in just 4 years.Special Guest: Ian McCollum.

This week we're trying something a little bit different. Usually, we have a guest on to talk about a recent gun story we've been reporting on. I thought it would be a good time to shake things up a little bit. When New York Times best-selling fantasy author Larry Correia's agent reached out about his new non-fiction book on the Second Amendment, it seemed like a good idea. Correia was amenable. So, I read his classic book Monster Hunter International and his new book In Defense of the Second Amendment to prepare for the conversation. I think they're both very good. Correia's background as a gun dealer, firearms safety instructor, and competitive shooter really comes through in both works. His breadth of knowledge about guns and real-world experience shooting them elevates the fights in Monster Hunter International with a grounding sense of realism. His up-to-date awareness of gun policy and politics puts In Defense of the Second Amendment head and shoulders above most political gun books, especially those written by someone who doesn't work full-time in the political world. We spend some time discussing his background and how it informs his prolific non-fiction writing. But most of our conversation focused on his new non-fiction work. In Defense of the Second Amendment, as you might imagine from the name, is a book gun owners looking to learn more about the political debate will enjoy most. But it's also one that provides a solid and readable guide to many of the best pro-gun arguments and responses to gun-control arguments. Those who disagree with Correia's outlook on guns may not like how he talks about gun-control activists or their ideas, but they can still get a good idea of how gun-rights activists think. The book provides a good picture of how most pro-gun people think about the fight over guns in America. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss a Fifth Circuit panel's decision to strike down the domestic violence restraining order gun ban.Special Guest: Larry Correia.

This week we have one of my favorite guests back on the show: Cam Edwards of Bearing Arms. There are few people who follow gun politics as closely as Cam. And even fewer are capable of the intelligent analysis he commonly offers. So, I'm glad he's back to talk about the complicated ins and outs of the ATF's recent rule proposals and public statements. The ATF clarified several points regarding its upcoming pistol brace ban this week. It said foreign-made braced guns can be either dismantled or registered as short-barrel rifles to comply with the new ban instead of being destroyed or turned in. They also announced plans to officially publish the rule on January 31st, giving Americans until May to comply before it becomes a crime not to do so. Cam said much of the 293-page rule is still confusing, even for somebody who follows gun news for a living. Are there any braced guns that the ATF won't consider SBRs? Do braces have to be destroyed after being removed to comply with the dismantling requirements? Can the ATF's current determinations even be trusted, given how often they reverse themselves? Speaking of the ATF reversing itself, Cam also gives an update on a recent Q&A posted on the agency's website claimed NFA items, such as suppressors or machineguns, could no longer be possessed by anyone other than the owner. That supposedly included times when the owner was there in person and allowing somebody else to try out or rent their gun. Cam said the ATF admitted this isn't true and, apparently, some kind of mistake. He said all these inconsistencies hurt the agency's credibility and make it very difficult for gun owners to navigate thorny legal questions that could produce serious consequences. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss a new Secret Service report detailing strategies to prevent mass killings.Special Guest: Cam Edwards.

This week, we're diving into the details of the ATF's pistol brace ban. That's why we have pistol brace inventor and SB Tactical owner Alex Bosco on the show. He gave his view on how many guns will be affected by the ban, whether any braced guns avoid the prohibition, and the legal case he's building against it. Bosco said he believes there are at least 10 million braces in circulation despite the ATF's claim the number is closer to 3 million. He said the new rule appears to effectively reclassify all braced guns with rifled barrels shorter than 16 inches long as short-barrel rifles that require registration under the National Firearms Act. That means millions of Americans will have to either dismantle, turn in, or register their braced guns to avoid potential federal felony charges. But he said the problem goes deeper than that because some braced guns won't be eligible for registration or dismantling. Bosco noted the ATF said many imported braced guns sold as pistols could not legally be converted to rifles under federal law. That means they must be destroyed or turned in to the ATF. Bosco argued this was one of several legal weaknesses in the ban that he plans to sue over with the backing of the National Rifle Association, which has committed to helping fund a challenge. The Fifth Circuit's recent ruling against the Trump-era bumpstock ban provides a good template for how to beat the ATF's latest regulation, and nearly every major gun-rights group is filing suit against the pistol brace ban. Bosco said he is hopeful they will prevail. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about local law enforcement resisting the Illinois "assault weapons" ban, as well as my trip to SHOT Show in Las Vegas, which featured a speech from ATF Director Steve Dettelbach.Special Guest: Alex Bosco.

The podcast is back after a holiday and illness break. This week, we're covering the pair of gun insurance mandates that have recently gone into effect. R.J. Lehmann, a senior fellow at the International Center for Law and Economics, joins us to discuss the details of New Jersey's gun-carry insurance mandate and San Jose, California's gun ownership insurance requirement. He said the requirements, which are the first of their kind, won't accomplish the goal lawmakers have claimed. Namely, insurance companies can't provide coverage for criminal acts. That basically leaves damage caused by accidental shootings as the only real option for coverage. And even accidental coverage is more limited than most people realize. For instance, homeowners' insurance--which San Jose now claims qualifies under its mandate--will cover accidental shootings, but only for damages done to third parties. That means any harm caused to the homeowner or family members living in the home wouldn't be covered. Lehmann said New Jersey's requirement is even more problematic because it appears to be trying to require insurance against deliberate, and potentially criminal, acts. He said that's not something any company offers nor is it a policy lawmakers could realistically force companies to offer. It also goes directly against the state's complaints about "concealed carry insurance," which are often not actual insurance policies but lawyer co-ops or group retainer plans. Beyond the practical problems with the mandates, Lehmann said they also face an uphill battle in the courts. He explains why founding-era surity laws are a bad analogue for these modern requirements and why they are unlikely to survive the Bruen test in the long run. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I examine the new Illinois "assault weapons" ban. And Reload Member David Rice tells us about he went from buying his first gun in 2020 to getting involved in gun-rights activism.Special Guest: RJ Lehmann.

Last week, we broke news of the CDC removing gun defense use estimates and a review paper it commissioned from its website after meeting privately with a group of advocates. This week, we have one of those advocates on the show. Mark Bryant, executive director of the Gun Violence Archive, was involved in the private meeting with CDC officials. He attacked Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck's estimate of 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year as misleading. And he said it was preventing new gun restrictions from making progress. The CDC initially rebuffed the request from Bryant, GVPedia's Devin Hughes, and Newtown Action Alliance's Po Murray. However, they eventually changed course and deleted the defensive use estimates from their website without getting input from other points of view or making a public announcement of the edit. Mark joins the show to explain and defend his role in the conversation, which he says he was added to late in the process. He argued his only concern in the conversation was with the accuracy of the data. Things got a bit heated when I challenged him on a number of points and vice versa. However, it stayed civil overall, and I think the conversation was fruitful and exciting. Beyond the politics of the situation, we also discussed the controversy over how best to measure defensive gun uses as well as things like mass shootings. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I give updates on New Jersey's gun-carry restrictions and California's fee-shifting law.Special Guest: Mark Bryant.

The CDC came under fire this week after we broke news they had deleted defensive gun use (DGU) stats from their website under pressure from gun-control advocates. It's an extremely important story, but one that involves some complicated science. So, I wanted to bring on somebody who has extensive knowledge of the topic to help us get a better understanding of the controversy. That's why I asked Manhatten Institute fellow Robert VerBruggen to join me. He has written about the strengths and weaknesses of different methods for estimating DGUs, including the Gary Kleck surveys at the center of the fight. He said the real problem with the CDC ordeal is that it raises ethical questions which cast a shadow over the agency's reputation. He said officials should not have consulted with gun-control advocates in secret and to the exclusion of other outside perspectives. VerBruggen noted there was no new information shared during the conversations with the advocates, and the initial language the CDC scrubbed from their website was not inaccurate. VerBruggen said there are legitimate critiques of using surveys to calculate DGUs. The media-report-based estimate that gun-control advocates prefer is even more problematic, according to VerBruggen. He explained the ins and outs of the different approaches and why they produce such divergent results. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss the political fallout from the CDC's actions.Special Guest: Robert VerBruggen.

Oregon's gun-control ballot initiative has put it at the center of the fight over guns in America. As the political battle ended with victory for Measure 114 and the deadline to implement a non-existent permit-to-purchase system closed in, a new front opened in the courts. Sam Paredes, a Gun Owners of America (GOA) board member and treasurer of the Gun Owners Foundation, was on the frontline of that legal battle. While multiple federal suits were unable to secure a Temporary Restraining Order against the law, GOA was able to convince a state judge the measure violated the Oregon Constitution's protections for the right to keep and bear arms. That decision has held thus far, despite an attempt by the state to get the Oregon Supreme Court to throw it out. Paredes joined the show this week to talk about where things stand now, and what's coming down the line. He said gun sales in Oregon will go on as usual for the time being, and the ban on magazines that hold more than ten rounds won't go into effect. But the fight isn't over as the state scrambles to create the permitting process and take the biggest practical issues with Measure 114 off the table. However, Paredes said GOA is encouraged by the Oregon Supreme Court's decision not to immediately intervene in the case. He said they may be hesitant to overturn the lower court's pro-gun ruling in the wake of the United States Supreme Court's ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. He argued they may not want to run afoul of Bruen and be overturned themselves. But the federal judge overseeing challenges to Measure 114 disagreed. She ruled the permit-to-purchase requirement and magazine ban likely don't violate the Second Amendment even under Bruen's text and tradition standard. Paredes said that judge did the analysis wrong. He argued the targeted magazines are in common use and protected, given SCOTUS's rulings in Heller and Caetano, and the permit-to-purchase law has no historical analogue. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss the surprising shift in the U.S. Senate's balance of power this week.Special Guest: Sam Paredes.

The race that will decide the final balance of power in the Senate will be decided in a matter of days. The contest in Georgia between incumbent Democrat Raphael Warnock and Republican challenger Hershel Walker won't determine who controls the Senate since Democrats have already accomplished that, but it will determine how easily they can move forward with President Joe Biden's executive and judicial appointments. That will significantly impact gun policy for the next two years. So, we've got Georgia State University professor Timothy Lytton on the show to talk about where the race is headed. Professor Lytton gives expert on-the-ground insight into how gun politics are affecting the race. He argues that gun policy is continually a major issue in the increasingly-purple state. And he says that while guns are unlikely to be a top issue in the campaign, they may be a decisive one for turning out votes. That's why it makes sense that the NRA is dumping millions of dollars into the race. It's also why the relative absence of the major gun-control groups is so surprising. But Lytton says they may still be contributing in other ways that aren't captured by Federal Elections Committee filings. We also go over Governor Brian Kemp's (R.) win over Democrat Stacey Abrams. Lytton said gun policy featured even more heavily in that race due to Kemp's successful push for permitless gun-carry earlier this year. But he's not so sure another big push to loosen the state's gun laws will be coming in the wake of Kemp's win. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogelman and I discuss new polling that shows the Supreme Court's latest Second Amendment decision is popular.Special Guest: Timothy Lytton.

This week on the podcast, we're discussing one of the many lawsuits currently trying to take down New York's latest gun-carry restrictions. Joining us on the show is Tzvi Waldman to discuss the New York State Jewish Gun Club's challenge to the ban on guns in places of worship. He argued the law, which keeps even those who are licensed by the state and authorized by their faith leader to carry from doing so, is unconstitutional. And he said it puts worshipers at greater risk of attack. Waldman said the law forces Jewish worshipers to choose between their First Amendment and Second Amendment rights. He noted the new restriction, which wasn't part of the state's previously-struck-down law, comes as antisemitism is on the rise. He said both threats and acts of violence against Jews have increased in recent months. Ultimately, he said the group plans to fight this case all the way up to the Supreme Court if necessary. He also talked at length about how the club has tried to destigmatize gun ownership for a lot of Jews. He said the Holocaust has served as both a catalyst for Jews to arm themselves and a reason many fear firearms. But Waldman's group is trying to normalize gun ownership and provide a community for Jews who do decide to buy guns. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I explain the Third Circuit's decision to uphold the non-violent felon gun ban.Special Guest: Tzvi Waldman.

The election is over, and it's time to read the tea leaves. That's why I'm bringing Cam Edward from Bearing Arms back on the show to interpret the results. How did the races we were watching turn out? How much impact did guns have on them? How much impact will the election have on guns? Cam says gun-rights advocates fared better than Republicans. While Republicans couldn't regain control of the Senate and appear to only have barely recaptured the House, gun-rights positions in ballot initiatives outperformed even popular Republican candidates on the same ballot. Additionally, key gubernatorial elections showed gun-rights candidates outperformed expectations. Still, it wasn't all good news for gun-rights advocates. The NRA lost much of its spending battle against the gun-control groups. And some officials who have made guns a major part of their public image, such as Congresswoman Lauren Boebert (R.), faced surprise upsets or extremely close races. Cam also sheds light on how the results might translate to real-world policy changes at the state and federal levels. Where are we likely to get new gun laws? Where is it unlikely? Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss a federal judge's decision blocking New York's gun-carry restrictions.Special Guest: Cam Edwards.

The midterm elections are upon us. As we've discussed previously, Americans are far less interested in gun policy than they were this summer. So, how will we be able to tell the effects of guns on the election? Axios Senior Political Correspondent Josh Kraushaar joins the show to talk about where we should focus our attention. There are a few races where guns are playing a more prominent role. The ballot initiatives in Iowa and Oregon that deal directly with gun policy are obvious examples. The gubernatorial races in Texas, Georgia, and New York are other races where guns are having a significant impact. But Kraushaar said overall control of Congress will be a really important tell because of how polarized gun politics have become. If Republicans win, it'll be a good sign for gun-rights proponents. If Democrats win, it'll be a good sign for gun-control advocates. It's that simple. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about Beto O'Rourke's struggle in Texas and Brady's new spending in two House races.Special Guest: Josh Kraushaar.

The midterms are just over a week away, and the outcome will have a significant impact on the likely hood of new federal gun restrictions. If Democrats hold control of the House and gain seats in the Senate, the possibility they blow up the filibuster and pass new gun laws rises. If Republicans gain control of either house of Congress, the likelihood of new gun laws falls to near zero. The gun groups know this, and they're spending as much as they can to push the outcome in either direction. So, this week, I've got Anna Massoglia of Open Secrets on to examine how much those groups have raised, how much they've spent, and where they've spent it. Massoglia gave the latest numbers from the NRA, Everytown, Giffords, and Brady. She explained how the NRA is still outpacing its gun-control opponents, but not to the same degree it used to overwhelm them. In 2022, the money fight is closer to parity. However, the gun-control groups have taken a much broader approach to how they spend their money. They've even started to move into races that have nothing to do with gun policy. Massoglia also gives insight into how groups on each side of the aisle are funded. While the NRA relies on a combination of big-dollar donations and small-dollar donor fees, the gun-control groups are more likely to rely on just the latter. She breaks down what we know about how the groups raise money, and what we can't know. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I cover a new federal ruling upholding California's "ghost gun" ban.Special Guest: Anna Massoglia.

The election is fast approaching, and they will determine control of Congress as well as the future of federal gun legislation. So, this week, we've got Cam Edwards of Bearing Arms on the show to talk about the impact of guns on the midterms. Or, really, whether they will have much of an impact. After all, the most recent polling shows Americans have lost interest in the issue as the election draws nearer. The gun groups have still raised and spent tens of millions thus far, with more to come. But they've all hedged their bets as well by incorporating other issues into their messaging. Cam noted that very few candidates have focused exclusively on guns either. And those who have, such as Texas Democrat Beto O'Rourke, are struggling to get close to their opponents. Still, Cam argued the issue is not a non-factor. As he noted, guns are rarely the top issue in a campaign season. Instead, gun policy can help push a close election a few points in either direction. That can be decisive in the very races likely to decide control of Congress. He also pointed to two gun-related ballot measures that are likely to serve as a real-world test of the issue's ability to drive votes. Plus, I explain why I decided to become a CNN analyst and what my role is going to look like.Special Guest: Cam Edwards.

On this week's episode, we're doing something a little bit different. Instead of interviewing somebody about something they wrote, I'm talking about a piece I wrote with my co-author. Gun-rights lawyer Kostas Moros joins me to talk about our look at what second-generation Americans thought of the Second Amendment. We set out to answer a pretty simple question: did gun-rights advocates recently invent the idea that the Second Amendment protects an individual right? The answer is no. Moros explains how he used digitized 19th-century writings to show Americans have long viewed gun rights as guaranteed to everyone. Writers famous and forgotten held the same view on that point. That doesn't mean they agreed on everything, though. Moros outlines how the 19th-century scholars clashed over whether the Second Amendment restrains the states or just the federal government, especially after a seminal post-civil war Supreme Court decision. He also delves into the divide over whether weapons useful in military combat are protected and how the modern gun-control debate turns that divide on its head. Instead of arguing "weapons of war" are unprotected by the Second Amendment, 19th-century Americans generally agreed those arms were protected while disagreeing over guns they associated with criminal activity. Moros, who commonly works on cases for the California Rifle and Pistol Association, also gives us an update on two of the group's most important cases. One against the state's magazine capacity limit and the other against a city's "sensitive places" gun ban. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman explains Mexico's new suit against American gun dealers.Special Guest: Kostas Moros.

The FBI just released its full 2021 crime report. So, this week on the podcast, we're talking about the spike in nationwide homicides. That's why Robert VerBruggen from National Review and the Manhattan Institute is joining us. He's been writing about the ins and outs of crime data for years and has produced some of the most insightful commentary I've seen. With data from the FBI, CDC, and elsewhere indicating a significant increase in murder over the past two years, VerBruggen walks us through the trend and its implications. He also explains why the FBI's data is less reliable than its ever been before and what impact that has on everything. He said that as we've seen a historic change in the murder rate, the FBI's reporting capabilities have become historically bad. However, VerBruggen said there is still a lot we can figure out from what we do know. For instance, he said it's unlikely that the gun sales spike fueled the murder spike. Instead, he argues police pullback in the wake of the 2020 riots is largely to blame. However, even that conclusion comes with significant nuance due to how widespread the spike has been. We also hear from Reload Member Allen, who is a new gun owner living in New York City. He explains why he decided to buy his first gun just over a year ago and what the onerous process for actually obtaining a shotgun has been like. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss a federal ruling blocking enforcement of the most controversial portions of New York's latest gun-carry law.Special Guest: Robert VerBruggen.

A lot has happened since the last time we took questions on the podcast. We're living through a time of great change with guns in America. Sales moved to historic levels in recent years, and millions of people from demographics that have been traditionally less likely to own guns have decided to arm themselves. Mass shootings have shocked the nation and led to the first new federal gun restrictions in generations. At the same time, the Supreme Court has handed down a seminal ruling protecting the individual right to carry firearms in public while articulating a specific new test for deciding gun cases moving forward. Add the upcoming midterm elections on top of all of that, and you can imagine Reload Members had a lot of questions. Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I did our best to provide some keen insight into the biggest gun stories of the day. We talked about the status of challenges to 'assault weapon' bans in the wake of Bruen, the latest with the ATF's rulemaking, how to properly assess public polling, the status of the NRA, and the fight over gun financing. We get into all of that and more.

We're focusing on a new federal court ruling calling the federal felony gun ban into question this week. That's why we've got George Mason University's Robert Leider on the podcast. He is an assistant professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School who has clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas. He has also written extensively about Second Amendment law. He said District Court Judge David Counts was correct in his conclusion that the ban on those under felony inducement receiving firearms does not have a historical analogue. He said the same is true for the ban on convicted felons possessing guns. Leider argued the text-and-tradition standard imposed by the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen calls both those federal provisions into question alongside a myriad of other gun laws. Still, he said it's unlikely the felony prohibition will end up in the dustbin. Leider said Counts's solution to the issue, which relies on the historical practice of excluding felons from protections for "the people," may not be the right answer. But he said the federal courts are likely to settle on a justification due in part to the popularity of the restrictions. He argued judicial realism will play a role in how the question plays out even if that's not what the Supreme Court requires. Leider also talked about what he views as the biggest threat to legal gun carry: New York's novel attempt to prohibit carry in public businesses by default. He said the decision to flip the presumption on its head could be difficult to contend with in court. It forces a faceoff between the right to carry and private property rights that has yet to be litigated. He said it's not clear how things will turn out and worries the policy could quickly spread to other states. Although, he also lays out a possible Achilles' Heel in New York's implementation. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about new polls that show how Beto O'Rourke's gun-control push in Texas is playing out. And Reload Member Bobby Mercer joins the show to talk about how he got into guns as well as what The Liberal Gun Club is and why he joined it.Special Guest: Robert Leider.

The gun industry is facing a new fight over financing for firearms. Gun companies have long struggled to obtain and keep banking services in place despite government pressure in the form of Operation Chokepoint and private pressure from big banks refusing to work with them. But now, gun buyers are facing pressure too. Gun-control advocates convinced the organization that oversees credit card merchant codes to create one for gun stores in hopes of flagging "suspicious" transactions for law enforcement. So, we have Larry Keane on to tell us how the industry is handling the change. He is the Senior Vice President of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), which represents gun makers and dealers. They are the literal gun lobby. Keane said the change is part of a larger plan to try and surveil gun owners. He said the goal is to restrict the ability of Americans to buy guns. He said the code change alone is unlikely to significantly change how things work because the credit card companies are resisting flagging sales based on it. However, he said the goal is to not only track sales by merchant code but to reform the system to allow credit card companies to see every individual product somebody buys. That would effectively allow them to track, report, and block any gun sale to anyone in the country. Advocates for the code change argue it could be used to identify patterns that indicate they may be planning a mass shooting. Keane said that's not realistic. He argued nobody has identified any discernable buying actions that reliably set them apart from the millions of Americans who buy guns every year. He also talked about the industry slowdown that's started to show up in major companies' earnings reports. The two publicly-traded gun makers, Smith & Wesson and Ruger, saw huge dropoffs in revenue and profit. Keane said the downturn was to be expected after two years of record sales, and he isn't terribly concerned about it. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman explains Dick Heller's latest win over DC's gun restrictions.Special Guest: Larry Keane.

We took a look at the largest-ever survey of gun owners this week. I covered the topline results, and Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman wrote an analysis for members on what the survey showed about AR-15s in American society. We plan to write quite a bit more on the study because of how much high-quality data is in it. That brings us to this week's podcast. Georgetown Professor William English, who conducted the survey, joins us to discuss the details. English said he wanted to update the evidence and address some common critiques of well-known gun owner surveys from a few decades ago. With new methods of carrying out scientific surveys, he was able to actually exceed those previous surveys by growing the number of respondents to the point where there were enough in every state to be representative. The massive sample size helped English deliver new insights on the diversity of gun ownership and how common gun carrying has become throughout the country. It also backed up other evidence on how frequent defensive gun uses are and how many Americans own magazines that hold more than ten rounds. English said the gun owners he surveyed reported using a gun for self-defense about 50 million times, a number that works out to about 1.6 million per year. He also found that most gun owners have bought the kind of magazines targeted by bans in some blue states. English also explained why he decided to use a survey to measure gun use and responded to some of the criticism self-reported self-defense incidents have faced over the years. He said his research on guns in America is only just getting started. He plans to publish several more papers on the study in addition to writing a book tackling the benefits and drawbacks of America's culture of civilian gun ownership. Plus, Jake and I talk about Smith & Wesson's sales falling off a cliff last quarter and what it means for the company moving forward.Special Guest: William English.

This week we're looking at the practical impact of President Joe Biden's "ghost gun" kit ban. The ban went into effect just a few days ago. So, it's a good time to check in and assess the fallout. That's why we've brought Rob Picus on the show. Rob is one of the key organizers behind the gunmakers match, a shooting competition for people who build their own firearms. He has become engrained in the homebuilding community. He said companies that make 80 percent frames or receivers have begun to test the new legal landscape. At least one company has made the unserialized and unfinished parts available for sale apart from the jigs and drill bits needed to finish them. Since the ATF rule considers the parts being sold alongside what's required to build them into a working gun the same as selling a working gun, the strategy to remain compliant appears to just be selling everything separately. Rob said Polymer80, one of the market's biggest companies, is also moving towards selling unfinished receivers on their own. Still, there are a lot of unanswered questions with potentially disastrous consequences for anyone who answers wrong. Rob explains the potential pitfalls. He also gives his view of the state of the effort to reform the NRA from the inside. Rob is a board member of Save the Second, which was formed to try and oust current NRA leadership and impose new internal controls after accusations of financial impropriety began hounding the gun-rights group. However, he admitted the reform movement has been much less successful than he'd initially hoped as this week's news that dissident board member Philip Journey is not being renominated for this year's ballot by his fellow board members. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss how California and New York are pushing back against the Supreme Court's gun-carry ruling.Special Guest: Rob Pincus.

This week we're talking about the implications of a polling trend and new political developments that should worry gun-rights advocates. So, I asked Cam Edwards of Bearing Arms to join the show. He is one of the most insightful gun writers on the planet and one of the few who has a solid understanding of national politics. We talked at length about a recent AP poll that found support for stricter gun laws was at an all-time high and, more importantly, an upward trend. Since 2013, support has climbed 19 points. That's something that I argued ought to worry gun-rights advocates. Cam agreed but cautioned against putting too much stock in any one poll. Still, he said gun-rights advocates need to focus on persuading the public that further gun restrictions aren't the answer to rising crime or mass shootings. He argued it is vital to convince people to support Second Amendment protections to ensure the long-term security of gun ownership in America. Then we turned to the midterm elections, where there was more bad news. The odds of Democrats holding the Senate and House increased in recent weeks thanks to some bellwether elections making the end of the filibuster and a flood of new federal gun restrictions more likely. Cam explained why those concerns are valid and why the nightmare scenario still isn't the probable outcome. We also have member Cody Claxton on the show this week. He tells us how he learned to shoot in the military, got back into it because of a threat to his life, and stayed in it because of competitive shooting. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about a federal judge ruling 18-to-20-year-olds have a right to carry a gun in Texas.Special Guest: Cam Edwards.

The Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen is going to have a monumental impact on the nation's gun laws. So, we've spent quite a lot of time talking about it on the podcast. We've talked to analysts and experts, including National Review's Charles Cooke and Duke's Andrew Willinger. But we haven't talked to anybody who is directly involved in the legal fight. That's why Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is joining the show this week. His group is involved in dozens of cases across the country. That includes a number of the most high-profile post-Bruen cases, such as the one against the California youth gun advertising ban. Gottlieb said Bruen has completely upended the legal landscape. He said gun-rights advocates have a tremendous opportunity to win many more cases. He explained SAF's strategy for approaching the newly-unsettled landscape. He said SAF has come up with a tier system with the ones it thinks it's most likely to win in the first tier and the rest moving down tiers from there. Gottlieb said there are a lot of cases in that top tier, especially with the new laws California and New York have passed as a seemingly purposeful affront to the Court's ruling. He said he isn't much concerned about governments coming up with coherent defenses of their strict laws in light of Bruen, but he does think a form of legal minimization may become more common. We also have a new members segment this week featuring Douglas Jefferson! Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogelman and I talk about New York's shocking court filing where they compared their gun laws to bigoted historical gun bans.Special Guest: Alan Gottlieb.

About two-thirds of gun deaths each year are suicides. It's an incredible challenge facing the gun-owning community. It's also one they've begun organizing to address. One person leading that effort is Michael Sodini of Walk The Talk America. He joins the show this week to discuss how the industry and gun owners alike have partnered with mental health professionals to try and reduce the number of gun suicides each year. Sodini said explained the way the program came about and how it fills an important gap. When he first attempted to use the resources of his gun distribution company to fund a mental health intervention program for gun owners, he found there was nothing in place. So, he helped form Walk The Talk America to develop a program by gun owners and for gun owners. He said destigmatizing seeking mental health resources is an important way to help gun owners struggling with suicidal ideation. One key part of doing that is ensuring people that they can reach out for help without having to worry about losing their firearms. Often that's one key reason gun owners are hesitant. That's why Walk The Talk America works directly with mental health professionals to help them better understand how to reach out to gun owners without alienating them. They have also started a network of approved providers who have experience working with gun owners. They've begun connecting those in crisis with those trained and able to help. Sodini said the issue is one that the community needs to take seriously and do more to address. He lost a friend to gun suicide and knows exactly how devastating it can be. I, unfortunately, can say the same. The more gun owners can do to look out for each other, the fewer we will lose to suicide. That's the key takeaway, according to Sodini. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogelman and I discuss how a new California gun law is dashing the dreams of a young female Olympic hopeful. And we talk a bit about my girlfriend's search for a concealed carry gun and Jake's own carry gun update.Special Guest: Michael Sodini.

This week we're taking a closer look at the latest lawsuit against California's unique handgun restrictions. So, who better to talk to than one of the plaintiffs in the case? That's why I reached out to Reno May. He has joined the suit claiming California's ban on "unsafe" handguns violates the Second Amendment. May's case comes after two previous challenges to the law have failed. Plaintiffs in the new case, which include the California Rifle and Pistol Association, argue the Supreme Court's New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen decision calls for renewed scrutiny of the regulations. They contend the state's modern first-of-their-kind restrictions can't clear the text and tradition test set in Bruen because there is no historical analogue for the roster. The "microstamping" provision, which requires all new pistol models to include technology that does not exist in any production firearm on the planet, is at the core of the plaintiffs' problems with the law. May said it shows the goal is to restrict handgun ownership rather than keep unsafe firearms out of the safe. He said the same was true of the requirement that three approved guns be removed for every one gun added to the roster. May said the law has a number of contradictions that undermine it as well. He noted that law enforcement is allowed to own and carry pistols the state deems "unsafe," and the majority of the guns on the roster don't include the safety features required in the act. Joining the suit puts May in the company of others who operate popular YouTube channels focused on gun ownership. He explained why he decided to get more involved in activism and why he thinks other "GunTubers" are doing the same. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogelman and I talk about the new ATF inspection controversy and how it gives insight into the new relationship between the agency and the industry.Special Guest: Reno May.

This week we're bringing in a fresh perspective on the Supreme Court's landmark decisions in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. I've talked with National Review's Charles Cooke and Cam Edwards of Bearing Arms about the case and its likely fallout on previous episodes of the podcast. It's only sensible to try and get another credible voice who looks at the situation from a different point of view. Andrew Willinger, the new executive director of Duke University's Center for Firearms Law, was gracious enough to fill that role. He gave his interpretation of what the court ruled in Bruen as well as its likely impact on Second Amendment cases moving forward. He argued the new text and tradition test leaves a lot of room for interpretation. He predicted there would be a lot of growing pains as the lower courts try to feel out how exactly to proceed with gun cases. Still, he said many modern gun regulations are at greater risk of being found unconstitutional under the Bruen standard. Plus, Contributing Editor Paul Crookston and I talk about the "assault weapons" ban just passed by the House.Special Guest: Andrew Willinger.

Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee voted to move an "assault weapons" ban for the first time in decades this week. The move came as a bit of a surprise. Democrats haven't passed an assault weapons ban at the federal level since the original one expired in 2004. They didn't include one alongside the other measures in the gun-control package they passed in the wake of the Uvalde shooting. So, I brought Cam Edwards from Bearing Arms on to discuss the changing tides. Cam is one of the most insightful pro-gun writers out there and has been for a long time. He follows gun developments in Congress as close as anyone. He said the move is perplexing in light of the latest polling. Assault weapons bans have actually lost support since Uvalde. Quinnipiac University found support for a ban at an all-time low this week. And that drop in support has coincided with their increased popularity. The National Shooting Sports Foundation reported more than 24.4 million ARs and AKs in circulation this week. Cam said Democrats are trying to use the ban as a wedge issue for their base. However, he doesn't see how the politics of passing the ban could help Democrats overcome the uphill battle they're facing in the midterm elections. He argued a show vote, which is what this will end up being if it does pass, is not going to satisfy most gun-control activists anyway. He also laid out how much of an "if" this vote really is. Democrats still don't have all the votes nailed down. They might not ever get there. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about the armed bystander who ended an Indiana mall shooting.Special Guest: Cam Edwards.

We've seen some of the worst acts of mass violence in American history this summer. That's why I wanted to bring on an expert in active shooter situations to give some insight into what causes these events and how they might be prevented. There are few people with a better understanding of the situation than the person who created the FBI's research program on active shooters: Katherine Schweit. She literally wrote the book on how to stop the killing. Schweit created the FBI's definition of "active shooter." While most media or activist counts for "mass shooting" focus on how many people are shot or killed, the FBI doesn't have an official definition for the term. Instead, it focuses on identifying people who attempt to carry out random public shootings regardless of whether they are successful. That makes it narrower than most definitions used by major media outlets, which incorporated many gang or crime-related shootings, but broader than definitions from the Associated Press or Mother Jones that focus on mass shootings where the attacker is able to kill many people. Schweit said that was the goal of her approach since it gives an opportunity to study trends that appear among those who attempt these attacks. She said nearly all of the active shooters the FBI has profiled over the past decade are young men. Most use handguns. And most are triggered by a combination of different stressors such as financial distress or social ostracization. Shcweit said the FBI's research has identified ways that shootings can be prevented. She said a big part of the solution is for people to speak up when they notice the warning signs somebody may be spiraling toward violence. She even explained a recent example where a co-worker successfully stopped a likely attacker after he threatened to carry out an attack. Plus, Contributing Editor Paul Crookston joins the show to talk about the flood of post-Bruen lawsuits.Special Guest: Katherine Schweit.

This week we're starting to examine the real-world effects of the Supreme Court's Bruen decision. With New York's restrictive gun-carry law being struck down, more people will actually be able to carry in the state. So, it's essential to understand who some of those people are and why they want to carry in the first place. That's why we have Laura E. Adkins on the show. Adkins recently wrote an opinion piece for The New York Times on her desire to arm herself. As a single woman living in New York City, she doesn't always feel totally secure. She described a fatal shooting of another woman nearby her home as one reason why. Police response times are another. Beyond basic safety concerns, though, Adkins said a recent relationship ended poorly, and she now feels increasingly threatened by her former partner. She obtained a restraining order but was told she likely wouldn't qualify for a carry permit under the now-defunct law. Adkins said she is hopeful the Supreme Court's ruling will mean she can obtain one soon. But she also recognized the new restrictions New York officials implemented in response to the decision will limit her options even if she does get a permit. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogelman and I discuss the Congressional reaction to the July 4th mass shooting.Special Guest: Laura E. Adkins.

Thanks to the first major Second Amendment ruling from the Supreme Court in over a decade and the first new federal gun restrictions in a generation there's a lot of uncertainty about America's gun laws. So, we thought it was a good time to answer some of your questions. Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I took submissions from Reload Members on their most pressing concerns. We got questions on everything from how the ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen affects the other pending gun cases before the Court to how stable the new standard set in the case really is. We talked about whether Bruen presents a risk to the new federal gun law and the details of the new law's gun provisions. We also covered the impact of not just Bruen but also the Court's ruling in a recent EPA case on a variety of ATF regulations.