That's because the group's North Carolina affiliate has filed an amicus brief in a Second Amendment challenge that's going to be heard by the North Carolina Supreme Court. And the ACLU is on the side of the defendant who is attempting to assert his gun rights. So, to discuss the details, we have ACLU of North Carolina Legal Fellow Jacqueline Landry joining us.

Landry helped author the group's brief in State v. Ducker, a Second Amendment challenge to the state's felon-in-possession gun crime. She said Ducker's underlying felony was non-violent, fleeing the police, and he never served any time in jail. She said the case isn't even about whether or not Ducker can be disarmed, but, rather, whether he can individually challenge his charges at all.

Landry said the lower court in this case had determined that anyone convicted of a felony falls outside of "the people" that the Second Amendment protects and, therefore, can't even make an as-applied challenge to their gun charges. She said the ACLU is arguing, alongside the CATO Institute, that the judge was wrong. Landry said the Supreme Court has determined the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right, and governments have to justify their modern gun restrictions comport with the historical tradition of gun regulation to survive a challenge.

She explained that the ACLU, which has started doing more Second Amendment challenges in recent years, has adapted to the Supreme Court's view of the right. However, Landry denied that the group has modified its views on guns and civil liberties. She argued the ACLU has always been primarily concerned with pushing back against the kind of categorical infringements on individual rights, like the felon-in-possession ban. She also disagreed that the group views Second Amendment rights as more limited than First or Fourth Amendment rights.

Landry also said the ACLU is likely to continue pursuing new Second Amendment cases moving forward, even if they aren't necessarily the group's top priority.

Special Guest: Jacqueline Landry.

Free Dispatch trial here: https://thedispatch.com/join-offer-reload/?utm_source=thereload&utm_medium=partnerships-podcast&utm_campaign=0924

Kopel was on the show about a month ago describing his brief in the case. And the issue in that brief came up in oral arguments. Kopel reacts to the discussion around the more problematic section of the federal law that bars those subject to domestic violence restraining orders from owning guns.

He also gave his view on the government retreating from the idea that anyone who isn't "law-abiding" or "responsible" can be disarmed. Kopel said that retreat was significant and could have implications for other Second Amendment cases coming down the line. At the same time, he said Rahimi's lawyer had to make his own retreats and the Justices seemed unsympathetic to his overarching argument.

Kopel predicted the Court would probably release its ruling before the summer and he expected it would uphold the ban. But he said the details of the ruling are harder to predict.

Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss the massive upswing in Israeli civilian gun ownership after the October 7th attacks.

Special Guest: David Kopel.

Jake Charles, an associate professor at Pepperdine University, joins the show to give us an overview of his latest paper. In it, he comprehensively breaks down how many Second Amendment claims have been successful thus far and which ones have performed best. With 31 successful claims, the post-Bruen era has seen far more decisions against gun laws than the immediate aftermath of 2008's Heller decision.

Charles said he wasn't surprised by how much of an effect Bruen has had, given the nature of the test it lays down. But he was surprised by the success rates of different challenges, though. While many carry restrictions have been struck down on a consistent basis, cases against unlawful uses of firearms or prohibited person prohibitions have seen little success.

We also discuss some of the critiques Charles has of the Bruen standard generally. He explains his view that the Court forstalling the use of anything but historical laws is too restrictive. And he argues the historical test is so far underbaked, which he claims has led to confusion among lower courts.

Charles responds to common pro-gun arguments that critics of Bruen are mostly upset with the standard because there simply weren't many gun regulations at the founding, which limits what can be considered Constitutional today. And he explains why he believes the Court's approach to analysis by analogue is not flexible enough to deal with modern problems the founders didn't face.

Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Charles and I talk about a federal judge upholding Delaware's "assault weapons" ban despite finding the guns are in "common use" for self-defense.

Special Guest: Jake Charles.

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.

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.