The Weekly Reload Podcast

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.

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.