Stories:
-https://thereload.com/hegseth-moves-to-make-it-easier-to-carry-guns-on-military-bases/
-https://thereload.com/usps-moves-to-allow-mailing-of-handguns/
-https://thereload.com/trump-doj-doubles-down-on-claim-it-can-ban-all-knives-member-exclusive/
-https://thereload.com/canadian-ar-15-mandatory-buyback-program-concludes-without-a-bang/
-https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2026/03/31/did-the-case-against-charlie-kirks-alleged-killer-just-fall-apart-n1232065
-https://coloradosun.com/2026/03/27/colorado-3d-gun-bill-amended-jared-polis-veto/

The Department of Justice recently made headlines, and garnered backlash, after it defended the federal Switchblade Act in court on the same day it filed suit against Washington, DC's "assault weapons" ban. To discuss the state of play in that case and against other switchblade regulations, we have Knife Rights Inc's founder Doug Ritter on the show. His group is responsible for the federal case and numerous cases against state laws around the country.

Ritter described the way switchblades, often described as automatic knives and sometimes vaguely defined, are regulated. He said the federal Switchblade Act effectively, or perhaps ineffectively, bans most interstate sales of the knives as well as their carry in certain places. He noted several states go even further and ban their possession outright.

In the case against DOJ, Ritter said his group is arguing that knives--switchblades included--are "arms" protected by the Second Amendment. He argued they fit the definition the Supreme Court has pointed to in previous cases and it makes little sense for the Trump Administration to argue AR-15s are protected by knives aren't.

Ritter further criticized the way that DOJ defended the Switchblade Act. He argued the DOJ's logic, which centers on the concealability of automatic knives and their appeal to criminals, could be and has been used to defend restrictions on AR-15s or even handguns. He dismissed the historical tradition of regulating knives cited by the DOJ as too thin to stand.

He also accused the administration of being schizophrenic on the Second Amendment.

He went on to describe his group's strategy in challenging state knife restrictions. Ritter said they filed suits in multiple federal circuits, hoping to create a split that puts pressure on the High Court to get involved. 

Special Guest: Doug Ritter.

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.

So, we have a man at the center of the case on the show to discuss it. Kostas Moros is a gun-rights lawyer who works at the Second Amendment Foundation, which is involved in a private suit against the department. He has also been directly impacted by the permitting process, with his own permit having expired as he waits for the department to process his renewal.

He also helped inspire the federal lawsuit. After he publicly advocated for the DOJ to pursue a pattern and practice investigation of the Sheriff's permitting process, the department reached out to him before following through.

He said the DOJ's suit is largely focused on the same claims as the private one, but he thinks it is more than a duplicative effort. He noted the DOJ has more power, prestige, and potential resources than any gun-rights group. He argued DOJ can, and did in this case, require localities to hand over important statistics and documents. They can also obtain a consent decree and oversee the department's permitting process.

Moros dismissed the Sheriff's Department's defenses for the delays. He argued funding or staffing issues aren't a viable excuse for years-long delays, especially when other counties don't have similar problems. Still, he said LA is not the only place the DOJ should consider filing this kind of suit, and he hopes this one is just a precursor to many others.

Special Guest: Kostas Moros.

On the left, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz (D.) is calling for a special session of the legislature to pass a gun-control package likely to include an AR-15 ban. On the right, the Department of Justice is reportedly considering an effort to ban all trans people from owning guns.

The Second Amendment Foundation is opposed to both of these ideas. So, we have Kostas Moros, a lawyer who was recently hired by the gun-rights group, back on the show to explain why he doesn't like the proposals and how they might fare legally and politically.

Moros said any attempt to blanket-ban people who identify as trans or who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria from owning guns would run into serious legal and constitutional trouble. He explained that current law requires an individual finding of dangerousness for the government to strip anyone of their gun rights on the basis of mental health. He argued, even if Congress changed the law, it would run afoul of the Second Amendment, and the Supreme Court would likely strike it down.

Moros argued the same is true for the potential "assault weapons" ban that could come out of Minnesota. He said four Supreme Court justices have already signaled they'd strike down a ban, and a Minnesota law could actually provide further reason for the Court to get involved.

Special Guest: Kostas Moros.

I think we judged that correctly because we had enough great questions on enough interesting topics sent in by Reload Members to fill up one of our longest podcasts of the year. We discussed everything from the impacts of the National Firearms Act tax cut to the future of the NRA and the Department of Justice's strategy in Second Amendment cases.

Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I dive into the details on each question. We cover a huge variety of topics across every genre of gun coverage.

Recently, a Fifth Circuit panel ruled silencers aren't "arms" and, therefore, don't enjoy constitutional protections. But then the Department of Justice (DOJ) changed hands and changed its mind on the case. In response, the panel took the unusual step of withdrawing its opinion. But we don't know what it plans to do next.

That's why we've got federal litigator and legal commentator Gabriel Malor back on the show to give his view on what may be coming. A lot of other commentators and several gun-rights groups have taken the withdrawal as a strong sign the panel plans to reverse itself on whether silencers, often called suppressors, are arms. But Malor said that's unlikely to happen.

He noted the DOJ's new position in the case doesn't actually argue silencers are arms, just that they enjoy some level of Second Amendment protection. He also said the panel thoroughly considered the arms question in its initial opinion and is unlikely to reverse, given no new facts or arguments are being presented. Malor also pointed out the panel addressed the basic argument DOJ is now backing and found it lacking, though it spent comparatively little time on that part of the case in its initial opinion.

He said the panel is likely going to delve a bit deeper into the DOJ's new argument before returning the same basic ruling.

Special Guest: Gabriel Malor.

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

We've got Andrew Willinger of Duke University's Firearms Law Center on the show to give us a different perspective from the one we got last week. He argued the administration is likely to move to reverse a lot of the Biden-era ATF rules currently tied up in court. Although, he said it might not do anything on the "ghost gun" rule currently waiting on a Supreme Court decision.

He argued areas where President Trump's other commitments conflict with gun-rights priorities, the latter may take a back seat. He said Trump may prioritize going after gang members who use homemade guns over protecting collectors who like to build their own firearms. Similarly, while his own non-violent felony convictions may inform the DOJ's approach to Second Amendment challenges against the lifetime ban for those offenses, his hardline rhetorical approach to drug crimes may lead the DOJ to argue in favor of that gun prohibition.

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

Special Guest: Andrew Willinger.