Links:
-https://thereload.com/bloomberg-pours-tens-of-millions-into-everytown-as-it-announces-another-3-million-midterm-ad-buy/
-https://thereload.com/analysis-everytown-blows-past-previous-midterm-fundraising-record-gun-rights-rivals-member-exclusive/
-https://thereload.com/home-stretch-polling-suggests-gun-policy-a-low-priority-headed-into-election-day/
-https://thereload.com/federal-judge-strikes-down-new-york-ban-on-civilian-body-armor-sales/

Special Guest: Julie Miller.

Links:
-https://thereload.com/gun-control-groups-dominate-midterm-fundraising-spending/
-https://thereload.com/silencers-sales-soar-past-1-1-million-in-2026/
-https://thereload.com/doj-moves-to-moot-under-21-pistol-sales-challenge-after-agreeing-with-gun-rights-plaintiffs/

Special Guest: Julie Miller.

The Firearms Blog TV founder, James Reeves, was subpoenaed in an Everytown-backed lawsuit seeking to hold Smith and Wesson liable for the Highland Park mass shooting. The plaintiffs are trying to prove the gun company's marketing contributed to the shooting, which is a hard lift but not a new tactic. What is new is how they're trying to do it.

That's where Reeves comes in. Reeves doesn't work for Smith and Wesson. He is a lawyer, gun-rights activist, and gun reviewer. He doesn't have any obvious direct connection to the Highland Park shooting.

But the plaintiffs want a trove of documents from him anyway. Why? Because, as Reeves puts it, they are treating all gun reviews as de facto advertisements. They believe Smith and Wesson pays reviewers either directly or under the table to try and make their guns more appealing to unstable young people like the Highland Park shooter.

Reeves said he has never done any undisclosed advertising for Smith and Wesson or any other gun company. He also said he's never taken direction from them or anyone else on what points to make in a review. He argued that while there are ethical issues in the gun review industry, they aren't nearly as cartoonish as what the gun-control groups imagine.

Ultimately, Reeves accused the plaintiffs of lawfare. He said they're trying to circumvent federal protections for gun business, and they're trying to inflict pain on them through the legal process. He then explained why he ultimately decided to tell the plaintiffs he doesn't have what they're looking for, rather than fight tooth and nail to avoid answering at all.

Special Guest: James Reeves.

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

To do that, we've got Hot Air's Ed Morrissey back on the show. He said he isn't surprised to see the gun-control groups outraising the NRA and its allies. He argued it would probably take several more cycles for former NRA donors to be comfortable enough to give to the movement again.

He was skeptical the money advantage will translate to a big electoral advantage at the end of the day, especially in the highest profile races. And he said gun-control ads leaning on abortion issues, while potentially understandable, is a sign the groups don't think gun control is a top priority. Although, he also said the ability of the gun-control groups to spend big in local and state races could have a significant impact.

He also gave his view of the effectiveness of Kamala Harris and Donald Trump's gun messaging in 2024, which was different from the views outlined by our previous guests, David French and Tim Miller. While neither Ed nor I make endorsements of candidates, we did briefly discuss our differing views of the dangers of either candidate.

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

Special Guest: Ed Morrissey.

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

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.