To explain the consensus that's developed across the appellate courts and provide a different perspective, we have Georgia State University Law Professor Andrew Willinger on the show. Willinger is the former executive director of the Duke University Firearms Law Center, and he teaches a class on the Second Amendment. He's also been critical of the Court's Second Amendment standard and its application at times.

He noted that every appellate court to decide an "assault weapons" or "high-capacity" magazine case has upheld restrictions on the devices. He said they've largely coalesced around similar reasoning. While the Supreme Court has gone out of its way to emphasize that step one of the Bruen test is meant to be a pretty simple filter, Willinger said most lower courts have actually upheld AR bans at step two.

Willinger said they've identified things like 19th-century Bowie knife bans as the core historical analogue for modern AR bans. He said courts have padded those laws with much earlier and much later weapons restrictions, such as the National Firearms Act of the 1930s. He noted some courts have also used the similarity between AR-15s and military weapons, like the M-16, to uphold the modern bans.

He rejected the idea that the consensus surrounding assault weapons bans in the lower courts is primarily a product of geography. Gun-rights activists have long claimed the fact that only a handful of deep blue states have these sorts of bans means only left-leaning circuits have the opportunity to review them. But Willinger argued that the judges involved in the decisions come from a fairly diverse background, with a number of them being Republican appointees.

Still, Willinger said he doubts the Supreme Court will find the same way the lower courts have. He argued we already know that four of the Republican appointees would strike down the law based on their public statements. He said Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett are the only Republican appointees who haven't directly opined on the laws, but he also said he doesn't think they'll both split from the other conservatives.

Special Guest: Andrew Willinger.

Stories:
-https://thereload.com/virginia-ar-15-ban-to-be-blocked-statewide-dealers-begin-preparing-new-sales/
-https://thereload.com/texass-talarico-backed-ar-15-ammo-mag-ban-in-2020-meet-and-greet/
-https://thereload.com/seventh-circuit-questions-mental-health-gun-ban/
-https://chicago.suntimes.com/us-supreme-court/2026/07/09/assault-weapon-illinois-cook-county-supreme-court
-https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2026/07/08/atf-director-pushes-back-on-maddows-attack-on-agency-n1233114

To discuss it, we have someone who has been around for that entire history and played a major role in shaping the Court's Second Amendment jurisprudence. Lawyer Stephen Halbrook joins the show to explain that history and provide insight into how it will likely rule in the AR case.

Halbrook said the legal landscape was very different when he first started studying the issue. At that time, the idea that the Second Amendment protects much of anything was out of favor with the lower courts. Instead, he said, the collective-right formulation was the most widely accepted.

He noted it was a fairly small cohort of lawyers and academics that changed the legal landscape on the Second Amendment. He said the individual-rights formulation caught on quickly and culminated in the 2008 DC v. Heller decision. From there, the Court incorporated the Second Amendment right to own guns to the states in McDonald v. Chicago and then recognized the right to carry outside the home in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.

Halbrook said the Court added to its pro-gun precedents in the two cases it decided this year, and he expects it'll do the same again when it decides the AR-15 ban. He also provided some specific insight into why he believes the Court will go that direction and which justices are the ones to watch.

Special Guest: Stephen Halbrook.

Stories:
-https://thereload.com/supreme-court-to-decide-constitutionality-of-ar-15-bans/
-https://thereload.com/experts-expect-supreme-court-to-strike-down-ar-15-bans/
-https://thereload.com/virginia-assault-firearms-ban-takes-effect-amid-murky-legal-situation-soaring-gun-sales/

Stories
-https://thereload.com/analysis-how-virginia-is-defending-its-new-ar-15-ban-in-court-member-exclusive/
-https://thereload.com/doj-opens-second-amendment-investigation-into-philadelphia-police/
-https://thereload.com/supreme-court-turns-down-doj-appeal-in-non-violent-felon-gun-case/
-https://thereload.com/texas-senate-candidate-talarico-says-hed-break-with-democrats-on-guns-offers-no-specifics/

Our guest is Philip Van Cleave. He's the president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), and one of the top gun-rights activists working in Richmond. He has been on the ground since the beginning of the session, and he has tracked every gun bill going through the legislature.

So far, 33 gun bills have passed through at least one chamber. Many have passed through both. Some are already identical copies, and on their way to Governor Abigal Spanberger's (D.) desk, where she's expected to sign them.

However, Van Cleave said there are several bills that each house will have to reconcile during what's called "crossover" in Virginia. That's where he believes gun-rights activists still have a chance to block at least some of the bills. He noted they were already able to block a few bills, such as the proposed $500 tax on suppressors.

Still, he said it's going to be an uphill battle to block big-ticket items like the "assault weapons" banand numerous gun-carry restrictions. But he said VCDL is going to keep pressuring lawmakers and the governor until the session ends. Then he said they plan to pursue legal actions if some of the more aggressive restrictions pass.

Special Guest: Philip Van Cleave.

On the one hand, the DOJ filed a first-of-its-kind lawsuit challenging Washington, DC's "assault weapons" ban. On the other, it defended the federal switchblade carry ban. To make sense of the two moves, we have Bearing Arms' Cam Edwards back on the show.

Cam said he is impressed by the DC suit. He argued that the DOJ might have a better chance of getting the law struck down than previous challenges did. He also said it could even be a candidate for Supreme Court review, though he noted there are several other cases that are much further along in the process.

However, Cam said he's disappointed by DOJ's defense of the federal switchblade restrictions. He argued the Trump Administration has been inconsistent on Second Amendment questions, and the latest moves show a continued dichotomy between how it treats state and federal laws. He said he'd like to see all approval on gun-related legal questions run through the DOJ's Civil Rights Division's Second Amendment Section.

We also discussed the reason Cam agreed to be a last-minute guest this week: Grabagun cancelled their CEO's planned appearance on the show. The company attempted to restrict talk about their involvement with Donald Trump Jr. before ultimately deciding not to do the interview.

Special Guest: Cam Edwards.

Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman joins me in fielding a bunch of different topics. We cover everything from the status of the legal fight over "assault weapons" bans, to what Second Amendment case the Supreme Court might take next, to what Donald Trump's next administration will look like.

We do our best to give as much insight as possible into where things currently lie and where they're headed. Reload Members, as always, give us a lot of great questions to work with!

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.

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.

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.