To help understand the ins and outs of why gun-rights activists object to the temporary gun seizure orders, we have the director of legal operations for the group challenging Maryland's version of the law. The Second Amendment Foundation's Bill Sack joins the show to discuss the latest ruling in the case, which actually went against the group.

Sack said their Maryland case centered around a dispute between a county zoning official and a resident that saw the man's guns taken from him over what he said were false claims of a threat. Sack said the incident is an example of the flaws in Maryland's system that allow for abuse of a fundamental right.

He also said the case shows the difficulty of making a Second Amendment case against red flag laws in the wake of the Supreme Court's US v. Rahimi decision. Instead, Sack said the group is relying more heavily on Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims against the lower evidentiary standards the laws use. He said the judge's point about similar procedures utilized in other contexts being blessed by the Supreme Court and others wasn't persuasive, and should be reversed--even in circumstances that don't involve firearm seizures.

Sack said the Second Amendment Foundation hasn't yet decided what to do in the Maryland case, but they plan to keep fighting red flag policies that don't meet their constitutional standards.

Special Guest: Bill Sack.

Stories:
-https://thereload.com/federal-judge-upholds-post-office-gun-ban-creating-circuit-split/
-https://thereload.com/federal-judge-upholds-maryland-red-flag-law/
-https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/court-upholds-federal-gun-ban-for-misdemeanor-domestic-violence
-https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2026/03/25/federal-judge-upholds-multiple-gun-free-zones-in-texas-n1231991

It made three substantial moves along the way. First, it finally revealed what it would do with long-languishing cases against Rhode Island's magazine ban and Maryland's AR-15 ban. Then, it decided, unanimously, whether Mexico could sue Smith and Wesson over cartel violence.

To break it all down, we have the new editor of one of the premier Supreme Court publications. Zach Shemtob of SCOTUSblog joins the show to give his perspective on what the Court decided and what it means for future cases.

He said Justice Brett Kavanaugh's statement on the Court's decision to deny the AR case and his confident prediction it would take a different one up soon was less a signal that Justices John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett agreed with him and more a message to them. Shemtob said Kavanaugh could be the fourth vote to take up a case at any time and may be trying to convince the two conservative holdouts to come around to his point of view, which clearly favors striking down such bans.

He also said Justice Elana Kagan chooses her words carefully when writing opinions. So, including a line about the popularity of AR-15s in her Mexico opinion may signal a willingness to find they're protected arms. However, he ultimately argued the liberals on the Court are still unlikely to agree with their conservative colleagues on AR bans.

Special Guest: Zach Shemtob.

Mark W. Smith, host of the Four Boxes Diner and member of the Supreme Court bar, joins me to talk about some complicated but fascinating cases. First and foremost, Smith explains why the case against Maryland's "assault weapons" ban has been moved on to be heard before the full Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals without the lower court panel that already held arguments issuing any decision. Smith predicted that might happen.

He said it was done to try and delay the case further. He argued the intent was to keep the Supreme Court from getting ahold of the case and potentially overturning the ban. Smith said that tactic was becoming more common among liberal-leaning courts in the wake of the Supreme Court's landmark Bruen decision.

But he also explained the Court may take up an AR ban case sooner than later anyway. He said it doesn't even necessarily need a circuit split, which is unlikely to happen anytime soon, to weigh in on the case.

Smith also weighed in on the Department of Justice's surprising brief in the NRA's First Amendment case at the Supreme Court. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about how a board member's letter brought the NRA's internal turmoil back out into the open.

Special Guest: Mark W. Smith.

Not only was the state's pistol purchase law ruled unconstitutional, but the gun-carry restrictions imposed by the state's largest county were blocked too. Mark Pennak was at the center of both cases, which is why we've got him on the show this week. He's the president of Maryland Shall Issue and its lead litigator as well.

He outlined the gun-rights group's arguments in both cases and how the two judges came down on them. He said the state didn't have the historical backing needed to justify their handgun restrictions, and Montgomery County effectively admitted in court they were trying to outright ban gun carry. But he said his group is ready to fight on in case either appeal the decisions.

He also responded to a question raised in the dissent in the handgun case. He unpacked the idea that pistol purchase permits should be allowed to stand if they work like gun-carry permits work. He argued that's not the right message to take away from Bruen or its concurrences.

Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I dissect the new attempt to rebrand AR-15 bans in the Senate.

Special Guest: Mark Pennak.

As I promised on the previous podcast, I asked Gottlieb about the ins and out of how the two non-profits he's a director of interact with the private entities he operates and what safeguards are in place to ensure the groups aren't being overcharged. He said SAF and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) have boards that approve the contracts with the private companies he owns, and he has no say over those decisions. He noted the relationships have been disclosed on the group's financial filings for decades, as required by law.

He also attacked Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson (D.) for a year-long investigation into the group that has yet to produce any charges or legal action. He accused Ferguson of targeting the gun-rights groups because they have started several lawsuits against the state's gun laws in recent years. He compared the investigation to harassment and said they filed a civil rights suit against the state over the cost of compiling the documents they requested and the lost man-hours involved in complying with the AG's various demands.

He said The Wall Street Journal, which broke the news of the investigation and raised questions about the gun group's finances, was negligent in repeating some of the accusations the AG has reportedly pursued without proper context. Gottlieb said one of the groups the paper implied he was profiting off of is actually a co-op that operates at cost. He said the other company he owns that does business with SAF and CCRKBA offers services at below-market rates.

Gottlieb answered several other questions about how the groups have operated under his leadership over the years. And he gave an update on SAF's latest lawsuits against New Jersey and Maryland's latest gun-carry restrictions.

Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss the Supreme Court's decision not to issue an emergency injunction against an Illinois city's AR-15 ban.

Special Guest: Alan Gottlieb.