Links:
https://thereload.com/virginia-legislature-passes-ar-15-ammo-mag-sales-ban/
https://thereload.com/los-angeles-court-didnt-report-felony-convictions-to-background-check-system-for-years/
https://thereload.com/beretta-fires-back-after-ruger-accuses-italian-gunmaker-of-hostile-takeover-attempt/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2026/03/10/trump-felons-gun-rights-mel-gibson/89069619007/
https://calmatters.org/politics/2026/03/california-gun-control-laws-newsom-firearm/

After a years-long hiatus, news just dropped in one of the major legal skirmishes. The Third Circuit threw out a challenge to New Jersey's file-sharing ban on Thursday. Just before that, California sued our guest for publishing gun files on the open internet.

That guest is Florida gun-rights lawyer Matt Larosiere. He joins the show to explain California's claims against him as well as the federal lawsuit he filed against California in Florida.

Larosiere accused California of filing suit for purely political reasons. He argued the state's claims are weak and its demand for nearly $8 million in damages is absurd. He claimed the state is effectively trying to impose its will on other states, even though neither he nor the other defendants ever went to California or intentionally shared information with anyone there.

He believes the Constitution is clear that gun designs and files are protected speech. Even if you drill down into more technical computer code associated with 3D printing of guns, Larosiere argued those files are protected by the First Amendment as well. That's why he was hopeful the test the Third Circuit created for judging the nexus between gun files and the First Amendment would actually help his case, despite that court ultimately dismissing a claim against New Jersey's file-sharing ban.

Special Guest: Matt Larosiere.

California Governor Gavin Newsom quietly signed the "Glock ban" into law with little fanfare, but its impact could speak volumes. That's what Cam Edwards of Bearing Arms argued on the show.

He explained that while the law doesn't directly name Glock, and it doesn't appear to implicate later pistol models from the company, it serves as an effective ban on the brand in the Golden State. That's because another California pistol ban, the handgun roster, already makes it impossible for most civilians to purchase new model Glocks. And the latest law targets the internal mechanism that the older generation Glocks are built around.

Cam acknowledged that "Glock switches," which illegally convert the semi-auto pistols to be capable of full-auto fire, have become increasingly popular in recent years. However, he argued that isn't Glock's fault and questioned both the sincerity of California lawmakers' concerns and the idea that Glocks are especially susceptible to illegal conversion attempts. He said that blaming Glock for criminals illegally modifying their guns without their cooperation or consent is wrong and warned that tactic is likely to be replicated against other popular firearm brands or models in the near future.

Special Guest: Cam Edwards.

Get a 30-day free trial for a subscription to The Dispatch here: https://thedispatch.com/join-offer-reload/?utm_source=thereload&utm_medium=partnerships-podcast&utm_campaign=0125

To do that, I got a leading Second Amendment scholar to join the show. Robert Leider, an associate professor at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia School of Law, explains why even broad gun restrictions continue to make it into law, and challenges have been less successful than many might have expected. He lays out the "asymmetry of legal liability" at the center of the dynamic.

Leider argues lawmakers, like the ones behind California's expansive new "gun-free" zones, are engaging in what he calls "loopholing." He said they are attempting to disregard the Supreme Court's purpose in Bruen by finding ways to create the same effect as the laws it declared unconstitutional by using slightly different tactics. He argued there are some ways to address this beyond normal challenges, such as removing qualified immunity protections for those enforcing the new laws.

But he also said gun-rights advocates are relying too much on court action in their push against new restrictions. Enforcement of California's new law has been barred again since we recorded the show, but Leider argued the outcome of the fight over the preliminary injunction is not nearly as important as people make it out to be.

Plus, I explain the implications of Wayne LaPierre stepping down as head of the NRA.

Special Guest: Robert Leider.

So, we've got one of the lawyers who won the case on to explain it. Kostas Moros, who represented the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA), joins the show to recount his arguments and the judge's decision.

The decision was a total victory for Moros and the plaintiffs. The judge enjoined all of the challenged sensitive places restrictions. He even went a bit beyond what the plaintiffs asked for and struck down the parking lot ban associated with many of those places.

Moros argues the judge, in contrast with an opposing decision out of the Second Circuit on a similar New York law, used the proper analysis when approaching the question of where guns can be banned by default. He said many of the locations existed at the time of the Founding but had no such bans. Under the Supreme Court's Bruen decision, he said that means the modern regulation can't stand.

The judge didn't stay his order. However, the day after we recorded the podcast, an appeals panel did. So, California's law will go into effect on January 1st as the case against it continues to unfold. But Moros said he and CRPA will keep fighting it as long as necessary to win.

Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss our exclusive story on how Hawaiians are effectively barred from buying guns for the next few weeks.

Special Guest: Kostas Moros.

It's once again in the news because a federal judge has found one of its strict gun-control laws unconstitutional. This time, it was the ban on magazines that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. So, we decided to bring on the head of the group that beat the ban.

California Rifle and Pistol Association President Chuck Michel gave us his insight into the case. He said the outcome was expected because this was effectively a retread. Duncan v. Bonta was initially decided in favor of the gun-rights plaintiffs only for it to be reversed by an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals only for the Supreme Court to grant, vacate, and remand that ruling.

The case is the first of those remanded by the High Court in the wake of the Bruen decision to reach a ruling. That ruling accelerates the magazine ban issue back up the chain in what will likely end with another Supreme Court showdown.

Of course, as California's magazine ban was being tossed, Governor Gavin Newsom (D.) signed new restrictions on gun carry and a sin tax on firearms and ammunition. Michel explains the new laws and how his group has already filed challenges to them.

Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss the Trump Campaign backtracking on claims he bought a gun while under felony indictment after finding out it would be illegal.

So, we decided to reach out to one of the most prominent plaintiffs in the case: YouTuber Reno May. He said he is happy with the outcome of the case. He even expressed optimism that the ruling might go into effect without an appeal.

Federal District Judge Judge Cormac J. Carney agreed with May and the other plaintiffs' argument that the state's "Unsafe Handgun Law" violates the Second Amendment. He found the requirement that all new models of handguns include loaded chamber indicators, magazine disconnect safeties, and microstamping were unlike anything in the historical record. Judge Carney said that the law can't stand under the Bruen standard.

While the problem with California banning handguns that don't feature a theoretical technology, like Microstamping, May explained why the other two requirements were actually more challenging for gun makers to meet than they first seem. For instance, many modern guns have some kind of loaded chamber indicator, but California requires one that has a specific phrase written on it to qualify.

May said the law has prevented him from buying any modern handgun from a dealer since he started buying them after 2013. He noted he and other Californians may still have to wait to buy new handguns, though, because the ruling doesn't go into effect for several more days. And he noted California is likely to appeal the verdict while asking for a stay that would delay the effect of this ruling.

But he noted the odd silence from the state and gun-control supporters about the case. That gives him hope that an appeal may not be coming. May also gave us some insight into the modern pistols he plans to buy if no appeal comes.

Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about why a federal judge added Polymer80 to the list of companies the ATF can't go after under President Biden's "ghost gun" ban.

Special Guest: Reno May.

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.

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.

Jake Charles, executive director of the Center for Firearms Law at Duke University, joins me to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the recent California "assault weapons" ban ruling. While he agrees the opinion was written in a way that makes it accessible to ordinary people, he argues it doesn't do much to convince anyone who isn't already on the gun-rights side of the fence.

We go back and forth on the metaphors used by Judge Roger Benitez as well as the backlash to them. And we talk about how influential his ruling might end up being in the long run. Plus, we dive into the different legal standards Benitez employs in his ruling, especially his "Heller test."

Jake brings his years of experience studying Second Amendment litigation and historical gun laws to the conversation, which helps him provide a level of insight you just can't find elsewhere. That's why I often quote him in my stories and why I wanted to have him on when I saw his take on the California ruling was different from much of what I'd seen in the gun community.

I think the conversation was fruitful and something you simply won't find anywhere else. When I say I want to bring on people who are both knowledgeable and have a different point of view, Jake is exactly the kind of person I'm talking about.

Special Guest: Jake Charles.