The Weekly Reload Podcast

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.

Two of the biggest gun stories in decades came to a head this week. The Supreme Court's anticipated Bruen decision invalidate "may issue" gun carry permit laws nationwide just before the federal government passed its first new gun restrictions in a generation. These shifts are monumental. That's why this week we're joined by one of the top pro-gun thinkers out there: National Review's Charles Cooke. Cooke has already written extensively on the ruling and the legislation. He said both would have far-reaching consequences. He argued the ruling puts the Second Amendment back on par with the First Amendment. It will not only eliminate restrictive "may-issue" gun-carry permitting, but it will cast a shadow over all kinds of other modern gun laws. Any regulation without a clear place in the founding-era tradition of gun laws will have a difficult time in court. As for the new federal gun law, Cooke argues the bill was poorly drafted with multiple confusing provisions and apparent drafting errors. He questioned why domestic violence records for "dating partners" are expunged after five years but no other records are. He noted how expansive it will be to make it illegal to sell guns to anyone with a juvenile felony conviction or involuntary commitment or how precarious the new gun dealing license requirements could make selling even a single firearm. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman explains a new lawsuit against Colorado police who killed a concealed carrier after he stopped an active shooter.Special Guest: Charles Cooke.

Senate gun negotiations carried on this week after encountering a few speed bumps. That's why I had another top Capitol Hill reporter on the show. This week, I'm joined by Burgess Everett of Politico. He has spent decades reporting on and talking to the key senators at the center of the gun deal. Everett said that while the deal has a lot of momentum, he's seen many so-called must-pass bills fail. He said that red flag grants being expanded to non-red-flag laws and how gun prohibitions should be extended to those that commit violence against their girlfriends are creating the most consternation. How those details get ironed out could determine whether a deal gets through at all. But Everett said the way senators are planning to change the background check system to get at juvenile criminal records is likely to be much more consequential than those two provisions. It appears the plan is to create a special new process for those 18 to 20 years old, one that includes a pseudo waiting period to ensure the FBI can access the often-sealed records. Despite the complexity and impact of the background check change, Everett said it has yet to generate any noticeable controversy among the senators. Mary Katharine Ham joins the show for a members' segment too. She explains her background with guns and what it's like to do shows on CNN or ABC while being a pro-gun commentator. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss Texas Governor Gregg Abbott's (R.) policy response to the Uvalde shooting.Special Guest: Burgess Everett .

This week we have one of the top Capitol Hill reporters on the podcast. The House passed a package of gun-control bills and bipartisan discussions in the Senate have been making progress towards a deal. So, I wanted to bring on Punchbowl Co-Founder John Bresnahan to give us a breakdown of where this is all really headed. Bresnahan has been reporting on the Hill for as long as anybody, and nobody else has a better view of what's going on. He said Senators John Cornyn (R., Texas) and Chris Murphy (D., Conn.) are the key players. He said the two are genuinely trying to come to a deal, and the odds of a gun bill package passing the Senate are higher than they've been in years. Bresnahan said the policies that have passed the House are non-starters in the Senate. Instead, Senators are looking at other solutions. The top ideas so far are including some juvenile criminal records in the FBI background check system, "red flag" model legislation coupled with a state grant program, and expanding a mental health funding program to all states. However, Bresnahan cautioned that the real threshold for a successful bill is whether it can attract not just 60 votes but also a majority of Republican support. He said he remains skeptical something can actually get across the finish line. He's still watching to see if and when an actual written bill comes together. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss New York's new gun laws and the foiled plot by a gun-control advocate to kill Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

The more we learn about the law enforcement response to the Uvalde, Texas school shooting, the worse it looks. After an initial exchange of fire with the shooter, police waited upwards of an hour to storm the room he was in and neutralize him. I've taken multiple active shooter training courses, and this response appears to go against everything people have been taught for decades. It also seems to have given the attacker the opportunity to kill more children. But I wanted to bring on somebody even better versed in both active shooter response training and what it's like to respond to a shooting in reality. That's why Active Self Protection's Mike Willever joined the show this week. He is a former federal agent who taught active shooter response training. He also once responded to a shooting as it was happening. He was as exasperated by the response to Robb Elementary School as I was. Active shooter response training is not complicated, he said. You go to the threat as fast as you can and neutralize it before doing anything else. Willever said, from what we know now, it does not make sense that leadership on the scene decided to treat the shooter as a barricaded suspect. When shots are still being fired, as they were in this case, there is no reason to wait. When there are injured victims trapped inside with the shooter, as they were in this case, there is no reason to wait. There just isn't an excuse for how law enforcement handled this. And there never will be. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogelman and I discuss the latest dismal financial release from the NRA.Special Guest: Mike Willever.

With so much going on this week it felt like the appropriate time to do another Q&A episode. Contributing Writer Jake Fogelman joined me to answer some of the most pressing questions from Reload members. With the NRA Annual Meeting taking place in Houston, Texas just a few days after a horrific school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, there is a lot to discuss. Members wanted to know how gun owners can best respond to attacks like this. What are some policy solutions? What's the best way to avoid bad-faith fights without completely ceding the conversation to the loudest voices? Could the Uvalde or Buffalo attacks have been prevented under our current laws? There were also several questions about the state of the NRA and the gun-rights movement at large. How bad have things gotten at the NRA? Are other gun-rights groups able to fill whatever gaps the NRA's struggles have created? What lies ahead? We answer those questions and more.

David French has long advocated for the adoption of red flag laws to prevent mass shootings. In the wake of the Buffalo shooting, where an unused red flag law may have stopped that massacre, he seemed like a good person to discuss the policy's advantages and drawbacks. French argued red flag laws, otherwise known as Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO), provide a kind of stopgap between releasing somebody who is troubled and going through the more complex process of involuntarily committing them. He said they provide a way to intervene with somebody who has demonstrated they are a risk to themselves or others. The Buffalo shooter would have met that standard and been barred from buying the gun he used to carry out his attack had anybody filed for an ERPO against him, French said. He argued lack of knowledge about how the laws work was likely the reason why it wasn't used in this case and said the governor's call for mandatory police training on New York's red flag law. However, he opposes her plan to require all police file for ERPOs on the basis of probable cause. French said he wants to see a higher level of scrutiny, like clear and convincing evidence, and a faster turnaround for a hearing with the person subject to the order than the 10 days New York current uses as its standard. But he said the due process concerns many gun-rights advocates have raised around ERPOs are ones that can be addressed and the core of the policy makes sense. However, he said President Joe Biden's call for a national "assault weapons" ban in response to Buffalo does not make sense. French argued that not only was the previous federal ban ineffective but the guns they target, such as the AR-15, are far more popular today than they were at the time. He further said AR-15s are not the most common guns used in mass shootings and are very uncommonly used in crime overall. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I look at the gun industry's latest effort in Ukraine as well as an ATF report on the industry's huge growth in recent years.Special Guest: David French.

We have an exclusive interview with Allen West for you this week. He announced on Monday he would accept the call of current and former board members to challenge Wayne LaPierre for the control of the NRA. He will be pitted against the long-time head of the organization in a fight for the group's future. The results will determine how the NRA moves forward after years of controversy coupled with financial and legal struggles. West says the gun-rights group is in desperate need of reform. He pledged to bring transparency to how the group handles its finances. He accused a "cabal" of top NRA leaders of blocking reform efforts and putting the group in legal limbo. He said the recent downturn in membership even as gun ownership has grown is a symptom of LaPierre's mismanagement. He argued leadership had lost the trust of members and that was the core of their problem. He said restoring trust is his top priority. West attacked New York Attorney General Letitia James (D.) for being biased against the NRA, but said LaPierre had given her the ammunition she is now using to try and capture control of the group. West responded to several critiques of his run from NRA board member David Keene. He also rejected the idea his heated rhetoric repels more potential NRA members than it attracts, a common criticism of the group's current approach. He said refocusing the NRA on core priorities such as safety training and marksmanship were key pillars of his plan to start growing the organization again. West said his reputation, service in the military, and previous time as a board member will also help him convince the board to choose him over LaPierre. That decision will be made by the board at this month's Annual Meeting which West says he will attend. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss California's age-based rifle ban being struck down as the state removes another popular pistol from its handgun roster.Special Guest: Allen West.

Lara Smith joins the show this week. She's the national spokesperson for a stereotype-defying group: The Liberal Gun Club. Smith talks at length about the group's philosophy. Rather than focusing on gun bans or restrictions, they believe in addressing the root causes of violence. They lobby against strict new gun-control laws and for alternative approaches to solving gun violence. She said the group has grown substantially over the past two years as the number of new gun owners has increased, especially those from demographics that skew more liberal. Smith argued that trend will impact not just her group but American politics at large. As the group grows, they expect their unique identity and approach will make them particularly influential with Democrats other gun-rights groups have little sway over. Smith said The Liberal Gun Club is not just about lobbying, but also community building. She said members fall all along the left side of the political spectrum. However, they all share one thing in common: an appreciation for guns and the shooting sports. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman gives an update on the latest NRA drama that's developing just a few weeks before the group's first Annual Meeting in three years.Special Guest: Lara Smith.

Philip Smith of the National African American Gun Association (NAAGA) joins the podcast to discuss President Joe Biden's recent moves to change ATF leadership. Biden recently picked a second nominee to head the agency. Then he demoted the acting director and replaced him with a third candidate. Smith said NAAGA is unhappy that Marvin Richardson, a Black agent with 33 years of experience, has now been passed over three times for White candidates who are less qualified for the permanent director position. Smith said Richardson is well-liked by ATF agents and the industry alike. He argued Richardson is a non-partisan with the proper skill set to run the agency in the long term. Smith's comments were backed up by the Black Agents and Professionals Law Enforcement Association which spoke out in support of Richardson. He said the President is wrong to push aside Richardson in favor of other candidates. He said NAAGA was concerned with the racial dynamics of the pick but also the political implications of it. Both of the permanent director nominees Biden has chosen over Richardson have established track records as gun-control advocates. He said the President should not only reinstate Richardson to acting director but put him up as the permanent director nominee. Smith also explained NAAGA's view on permitless gun-carry and whether the group plans to become more politically involved as it continues to grow. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about what the newest video from the set of Rust tells us about Alec Baldwin's shooting.Special Guest: Philip Smith.

Cam Edwards of Bearing Arms joins the show this week after the ATF saw a significant shakeup. After President Biden announced he would nominate a new permanent director last week, he took to punishing the acting director. Marvin Richardson, a 30-year career agent, was moved down to acting deputy director for the last few months of his time at the agency. The move comes just a month after gun-control advocates and The New York Times attacked Richardson as too friendly towards the gun industry. Cam argues those complaints were weak. He says the gun-control groups want an ideologue in charge of the ATF which is why they backed David Chipman's failed nomination and are backing the nominations of Steve Dettelbach. He said Richardson fell short in their eyes, and ultimately the President's, by not approaching the gun industry as an adversary. But Cam sees the move to demote Richardson as one that will ultimately harm the President's latest ATF nominee's chances of getting through confirmation. He noted complaints from the National African American Gun Association about Richardson, who is Black, being passed over twice for White candidates whose most recent experience was in the political realm rather than law enforcement. Given how difficult it is to confirm an ATF director in an evenly divided Senate, and the fact Biden already failed to do so once before, any additional controversy could sink Dettebach's bid. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss a top Florida Democrat's new gun-rights lawsuit against the Biden Administration.Special Guest: Cam Edwards.

President Biden went hard after "ghost guns" and the companies that make them this week. So, on this episode, we've got one of the most prominent men who is squarely in his sights: Defense Distributed's Cody Wilson. Wilson is a pioneer in 3D-printed guns having developed the first prototype called The Liberator. His Ghost Gunner mini-CNC machine is among the popular ways to finish the unfinished gun receivers commonly available on the market. As such, he read through the entire 364-page final guidance on the new ban from the ATF. We discuss the ins and out of what exactly is illegal now, how that will impact the firearms industry, and some of the surprises in the final regulation. Wilson says he feels the regulations are unjust and unconstitutional. He said he plans to file suit against the administration over the changes. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about what we've found out about President Biden's new ATF director nominee Steve Dettelbach.Special Guest: Cody Wilson.

Author and Washington Post Columnist Radley Balko joins the show this week to talk about how police militarization impacts gun rights. Balko has spent a career documenting questionable police tactics, and he provides some unique insight into the Amir Locke case. Minneapolis Police killed Locke during a no-knock raid in February because he reached for a gun during the confusion caused by his apartment door being kicked in without warning. Locke wasn't the subject of the warrant and had no record, but he ended up dead. Now, the police officer who shot him has been cleared of any wrongdoing. He is far from the only person who has had their life or freedom taken without recourse as the result of drawing a gun during a no-knock raid. Balko gives background on a vast collection of people who have found themselves in the same situation. We also discuss the delicate balance between respecting police, attempting to make their jobs safer, and upholding Americans' civil liberties. Balko explains his view on how gun-rights proponents should react when those priorities come into conflict. And he shares real-world examples of it happening, including the use of dubious ballistic matching evidence against criminal defendants. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss California Senator Diane Feinstein's (D.) solution to last week's deadly shootout in Sacramento. And we have another member segment too!Special Guest: Radley Balko.

Florida is going to have a special session where Governor Ron DeSantis (R.) says he hopes permitless gun-carry is added to the agenda. So, who better to bring on the show to discuss this news than Florida Man Charles Cooke? The National Review senior writer joined the podcast to give some insight into the state of the proposal. He said it will likely be an uphill battle to get the policy through the legislature even with the backing of DeSantis. He also explained the unique nature of Florida's gun laws which lag behind those of other red states despite the Sunshine State's reputation as the "Gunshine State." Cooke also weighed in on the success of the permitless carry movement thus far. He said the momentum generated by the incredible sweep gun-rights advocates have been able to pull of in such a short period of time will generate enough pressure to get the policy passed in Florida. But, he said, it might not be until next year. We also look at what Ketanji Brown Jackson's confirmation hearings revealed about her views on the Second Amendment. She has a sparse record on guns, but she was nominated by a staunch gun-control proponent and the gun-control groups all support her. However, there is some reason to believe she may take a more expansive view of the Second Amendment than previous Democratic nominees. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman looks at new data on first-time gun owners and we have another member segment!Special Guest: Charles Cooke.

Nationally-syndicated radio host and author Erick Erickson joins the show this week to talk about the Georgia election, NRA, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Erickson, who lives in Georgia, has closely followed the gubernatorial election. The Republican primary has been particularly heated this year with former-president Donald Trump enticing former-senator David Purdue to run against incumbent Brian Kemp as a form of payback over rebuffed attempts to flip the 2020 election results. With Kemp facing stiff opposition he's turned back to a policy he first ran on in 2018: permitless gun-carry. Whether Kemp can get the bill over the finish line before the election comes will have a big impact on the race, according to Erickson. He also weighs in on the claim by Perdue and likely Democratic nominee Stacey Abrams that Kemp sat on the proposal until it was politically advantageous. He said even if those claims are true, it may not matter if Kemp ultimately delivers which he seems to be on the cusp of doing. Erickson also talked about the idea the gun-rights movement has been so successful it's started to lead to problems. He cites the corruption allegations weighing down the NRA as one example, but also pointed to some more questionable gun bills making it into law in deep-red states. He said the gun-rights movement should refocus its efforts on fighting strict gun laws in deep-blue states rather than passing symbolic or even counter-productive laws in places they've already enacted a myriad of pro-gun policies. Erickson also weighed in on why he isn't convinced by President Biden's Supreme Court nominee saying she believes in the Heller precedent. He said he doesn't trust her not to overturn the landmark gun case given the chance. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman joins the show to talk about how armed Ukrainian civilians helped fend off a mechanized Russian assault on a key farm town. And we speak to another Reload Member this week. Dennis Chapman, a lawyer and author living in Virginia, joins the show to talk about how he became interested in guns to the point of writing a book about the AR-15.Special Guest: Erick Erickson.

Rhode Island's statewide stun-gun ban was overturned by a federal court this week. It was the last of its kind, and the latest to fall in what's becoming a systemic dismantling of the prohibitions across the country. The effort to liberalize stun gun and taser laws wasn't undertaken by any of the major gun-rights groups or civil-rights organizations. It hasn't been backed by anyone with deep pockets. Instead, it's been something of a passion project for a lawyer who started off with a $10,000 budget. That lawyer is Alan Beck, and he's our guest on this week's episode of the podcast. Beck describes what motivated him to get involved in stun-gun litigation. He also explains how a key 2016 Supreme Court decision added fuel to the fire which swept through multiple state and local bans. He explained his strategy for tearing down the prohibitions and how that same strategy could foreshadow what's possible for other areas of Second Amendment litigation. He also details how places like Hawaii have tried to push back against the courts striking down their stun-gun bans by imposing restrictions just short of prohibitions. And he says that's exactly how states forced to give up their restrictive gun-carry laws could react. Speaking of Hawaii, Beck has also filed a number of suits against that state's outlier gun laws. The most famous of which is Young v. Hawaii where he was able to convince a lower court to toss the state's total ban on open carry before being reversed at the Ninth Circuit. That case is now pending appeal at the Supreme Court. We talk about why Hawaii has similarly been neglected by most gun-rights groups despite having some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Reload member Nathan Gorenstein also joins the show for a member segment. The former Philadelphia Inquirer editor shares how he became interested in guns, and how legendary gun designer John Moses Browning piqued his interest enough to write an entire book about him. Plus, contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss the latest state to adopt permitless gun-carry.Special Guest: Alan Beck.

We're doing something different this week. Instead of interviewing an expert on a single topic, we're letting Reload members interview us on a bunch of different topics. It's our first Q&A episode! Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I answer questions on a wide range of stories. What is going on with gun laws and armed civilians in Ukraine? How could it affect American gun politics? How much control does Wayne LaPierre have over the NRA board? What's happening with President Biden's pistol brace ban proposal? How does grandfathering play into his plan? What would it take to get a national reciprocity bill? When could gun owners see carry bans or AR-15 bans come to an end? What effect could the Supreme Court's gun-carry case have on that timeline? How might that same Supreme Court ruling affect demand for guns in deep blue states? Plus, what's the best way to improve media coverage of gun issues throughout the country?

The NRA will not be forced to close down due to the New York Attorney General's corruption suit. However, the case remains active. So, former NRA board member Rocky Marshall joined the show this week to discuss the internal fight over the corruption allegations against NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and other members of leadership. Marshall is one of the few board members to publicly oppose LaPierre and make efforts to remove him from leadership. Last year, he became the first person to run against LaPierre for Executive Vice President. He said he is glad the Attorney General won't be able to shutter the organization. He also said he believes the evidence shows LaPierre did divert large sums of NRA money to his own personal expenses. Marshall argued the group has been seriously harmed by that corruption and must be reformed if it hopes to survive. But the board remains almost entirely behind LaPierre. Marshall lost the election to LaPierre in a landslide, and he wasn't renominated to run for the board again this year. Plus, NRA lawyers have accused him of trying to take over control of the NRA for himself. Marshall said the board is effectively controlled by a small number of board members who are on many of the most important board committees. He argued that group of LaPierre loyalists controls the board nomination process, which goes through the board's nominating committee, and forces internal critics off their committee positions and the board as a whole. He said the only hope for the NRA is a member-led reform movement and said that's what he is focusing his efforts on now. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss where President Biden's Supreme Court nominee may end up on gun law.Special Guest: Rocky Marshall.

War continues to rage in Ukraine as Russia attempts to capture cities across the nation despite fierce resistance. Part of that resistance has been made up of civilian volunteers who've gained new protections for their right to armed defense and been given guns by the military. Anthony Constantini, who received a master's degree in arms control and strategic studies from St. Petersburg State University, joined me on the show to discuss how this strategy of arming civilians represents a departure from traditional European views. And we talk about how it may play out. Anthony wrote an analysis piece for The Reload on how this shift towards civilian gun rights may impact the entire region's attitudes. The situation strikes at the heart of what many gun-rights advocates have long believed: an armed populace is harder to oppress. But the reality is the fight will be brutal and could last for a long time. Arming the public, especially when done as an invasion begins, is not a magic silver bullet that guarantees an easy win. There is no reason to envy the position Ukrainians are in right now, but they've given us many reasons to admire them. Ukraine is unique and better positioned to employ volunteer civilian fighters than many in the west may realize, though. Anthony pointed out the country has been fighting a war with Russian-backed separatists for the past 8 years and volunteers have played a major role. Plus, the government has been actively training those volunteer groups and incorporating them into the military for a good while now. The situation is moving quickly and there is no way to know how things will turn out. However, it appears the Russian invasion has not met its main goal of capturing the country's major cities and deposing its government. We don't know for sure how much the armed population is bolstering the country's military operations, but everything we've heard from the Ukrainian people thus far indicates they have the kind of resolve that will make it extremely difficult to keep them under Putin's heel.Special Guest: Anthony Constantini.

Insurers for the defunct Remington Outdoor Company paid out a $73 million settlement to families of the Sandy Hook victims. It was the first time any gun company, even a bankrupt and dismantled one, has ever paid money to plaintiffs who claimed they were at least partially responsible for the criminal acts of a third party. It's an unprecedented situation that raises a ton of questions. That's why I brought on one of the best gun writers out there: Bearing Arms editor Cam Edwards. Cam and I go through the 6-year timeline of the case and talk about how we got to this settlement. The case was filed in 2015 with three different claims for how Remington was liable for the actions of the shooter. Two of those arguments dealt with how selling the AR-15, the most popular rifle in America, to civilians was unacceptable because the plaintiffs view them as "weapons of war." Those claims were tossed by the Connecticut Supreme Court. However, the same court allowed the third claim that Remington's advertising violated Connecticut law and contributed to the lethality of the attack to move forward. The United States Supreme Court declined to intervene after that and Remington Outdoor Company filed for bankruptcy a few months later. That put the defunct company's insurers in charge of the case and they moved to settle almost immediately after that. The nature of the plaintiffs' argument combined with a lack of evidence the shooter or his mother (who actually bought the gun) ever saw the advertising makes it difficult to understand the insurers' decision. I've offered up some explanation for it, but Cam had some additional insights I'd never thought of before. He noted that the recent payouts to the Parkland and Sutherland Springs shooting victims may have played into the insurers' calculous. Those cases saw totals over the $100 million mark. Plus, a jury could be sympathetic to the victims and try to hold Remington accountable for what happened since it's difficult to find anyone else to hold responsible. At the same time, Cam said the merits of the case seemed weak and people aren't inclined to blame a company when somebody uses their product to commit a crime. We also predicted how the settlement might impact the industry as a whole. Cam said insurance rates may go up and the success of the plaintiffs could inspire similar suits. However, he noted these kinds of suits have been going for decades already and the settlement did not set any kind of binding legal precedent. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss Beto O'Rourke's latest zig-zag on gun confiscation.Special Guest: Cam Edwards.

Georgia Governor Brian Kemp (R.) joined the podcast this week to discuss his approach to gun policy and why he thinks gun owners should vote for him. We started off by discussing his background with guns. He talked about how he got into hunting and how members of his family have become concealed carriers themselves. Kemp also explained getting permitless gun-carry passed this year is his top priority. He said he was confident the policy would pass this year because lawmakers will be more motivated after the rioting of 2020. He said voters would prefer his record to promises made by his primary opponent former Senator David Perdue (R.). “I think that’s what people want,” Kemp said. “They want a governor that’s got a record of not only saying what they’re going to do but actually doing it when they’re in office, which is what I’ve done. Versus somebody like my opponent who promises everything, goes and does something differently or is a johnny-come-lately to the policy side of this.” He accused Perdue of supporting permitless carry out of political convenience. “Anybody who gets into the governor’s race is now supportive of Constitutional carry,” Kempt said. “I would remind you that I was for it back when I campaigned back in 2017 and 18. I’ve got a strong Second Amendment record.” Kemp also went after Abrams during our interview. He attacked her as somebody who wants to confiscate firearms. “Well, I think if you really translate what she’s saying is she doesn’t want law-abiding people to have firearms and to be able to carry,” Kemp said. He also said her objections to permitless carry were unfounded and said it was vital for gun owners that she not win the race. “Obviously, those individuals shouldn’t be allowed to carry,” Kemp said. “The legislation would prevent that. But when you have people that break the law, they don’t really care about this. This is about letting lawful people be able to carry their weapon and protect themselves.” He said he was the only candidate on the Republican side who could defeat her. Oddly, both Perdue and likely Democratic nominee Stacey Abrams (D.) told The Reload they question Kemp's commitment to permitless carry since he was unable to pass it during his time in office. Each campaign fired back at Perdue's comments on the show. You can read more about the Perdue and Abrams exchanges in our reporting from Friday. Kemp also talked at length about how he is bringing gun companies to Georgia, whether the state is turning purple, and how he believes Georgia Democrats have moved too far to the left on guns. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman joins me to talk about the Air Force being forced to compensate victims of the Sutherland Spring shooting and Beto O'Rourke backtracking on his pledge to take away people's AR-15s.Special Guest: Brian Kemp.

On this week's episode, we drill down into the details of the internal financial document The Reload obtained from an NRA source. Ohio State University Accounting Professor Brian Mittendorf joins the show to give insight into what the document says and what the massive drops in revenue and membership reveal about the future of the country's most influential gun group. He says the NRA has actually improved its financial position, but only by drastically cutting back on its core services. That puts it in danger of entering a kind of "death spiral" with fewer members leading to fewer revenue and services, leading to fewer members, he said. Allegations of corruption against NRA leadership, including CEO Wayne LaPierre, and the effects of the pandemic have combined for a serious blow to the organization. With membership shrinking, revenues have dwindled. That's forced the gun-rights behemoth to make difficult choices about cutting its training, community outreach, competitive shooting, and many more programs. Professor Mittendorf has followed the NRA's finances for years and said the internal document obtained by The Reload is one of the most in-depth accountings ever made public. He talked about the complex makeup of the group, its bankruptcy, its legal spending, and its fascinating debt payments. Plus, he talks at length about how new planned gifts have cratered despite being a major source of long-term revenue. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman provides a deeper look at the NRA's membership situation. Dues have fallen by half since 2018. Membership has continually declined since then. The NRA's internal accounting contradicts its public claim it reached 6 million members in that year. Instead, it was below 5.5 million at its peak and is now closer to 4.75 million. I also explain why the NRA's financial situation continues to matter so much. Not just for NRA members and staff, but for everyone who cares about guns. The group continues to loom large over the gun-rights fight in America by dwarfing most other groups combined.Special Guest: Brian Mittendorf.