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.

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.

Joining us on the show is Tzvi Waldman to discuss the New York State Jewish Gun Club's challenge to the ban on guns in places of worship. He argued the law, which keeps even those who are licensed by the state and authorized by their faith leader to carry from doing so, is unconstitutional. And he said it puts worshipers at greater risk of attack.

Waldman said the law forces Jewish worshipers to choose between their First Amendment and Second Amendment rights. He noted the new restriction, which wasn't part of the state's previously-struck-down law, comes as antisemitism is on the rise. He said both threats and acts of violence against Jews have increased in recent months.

Ultimately, he said the group plans to fight this case all the way up to the Supreme Court if necessary.

He also talked at length about how the club has tried to destigmatize gun ownership for a lot of Jews. He said the Holocaust has served as both a catalyst for Jews to arm themselves and a reason many fear firearms. But Waldman's group is trying to normalize gun ownership and provide a community for Jews who do decide to buy guns.

Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I explain the Third Circuit's decision to uphold the non-violent felon gun ban.

Special Guest: Tzvi Waldman.

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.

Plus, how will the High Court's ruling impact the lower courts and all of the other gun litigation moving through the federal system?

I also ask David how he feels about the way red flag laws have actually been implemented since he began advocating for the concept a few years ago. Is he happy with how states are approaching red flag laws? Are they being too loose with the concept of due process? What state has the best model for red flag laws in practice?

I thought it was a very enlightening conversation. You can't beat the perspective of a litigator of David's experience level when it comes to discussing the federal courts. I plan to have him back on again once the Supreme Court case starts to heat up this fall.

Special Guest: David French.