Now, a few weeks later, those groups have nearly all sorted into two coalitions, and they've both filed suit. One coalition, led by Gun Owners of America (GOA), filed in the Fifth Circuit. Another, led by the National Rifle Association (NRA), filed in the Eighth Circuit.

To analyze the arguments of each case, we've got independent gun-rights lawyer Matt Larosiere on the show. He's brought both tax power and Second Amendment challenges against the NFA before. So, he has direct experience with the claims at issue in both cases.

Larosiere said he is on board with the logic behind the GOA and NRA lawsuits, but he argued they face a difficult climb to achieve their goals. He said tax challenges are more complex than most people imagine, and it can be difficult for Second Amendment attorneys to navigate the waters of a successful pleading. He said the Second Amendment claim in the NRA case may have an easier path, but noted it wasn't a new tactic and has failed in the past.

Special Guest: Matt Larosiere.

That may have implications for not just the ban itself but the law it is housed under: The National Firearms Act (NFA). That's why we've got a gun-rights lawyer who has handled NFA cases. Matt Larosiere gives his view of what the holding in US v. Morgan means for the ban on post-1986 fully-automatic weapons and the NFA writ large.

He notes the case doesn't include an injunction against the ban. Instead, it's limited to the named defendant. He argued it's very likely to be appealed and unlikely to win at the next level, though he couldn't say for sure.

Larosiere said the barrier to plaintiffs winning cases against the ban was less a legal one than a public or judicial perception one. Still, he argued the victory in Morgan was not meaningless. He said it would help him and other gun-rights activists in future cases against the ban as well as other portions of the NFA.

Special Guest: Matt Larosiere.

A federal judge's recent ruling that the law disarming a defendant who is in the country unlawfully, but who doesn't have any violent convictions, violates the Second Amendment has drawn a lot of attention. It has been one of our most trafficked stories at The Reload this year. The same is true for the dueling analysis pieces we published examining the ruling's legal theory and where the Supreme Court might come down on the issue.

Given the discussion surrounding all of this, it seemed like a good idea to take a deeper dive into the topic. That's why we asked gun-rights lawyer Matt Larosiere, who wrote one of those analysis pieces for us, to come on the show. He gave us a fuller explanation of why he believes the Second Amendment protects nearly all people in the United States, regardless of their immigration status.

He argued the modern gun prohibition based on immigration status shouldn't be able to withstand the Supreme Court's Bruen test because the Founders didn't view citizenship the way we do today and the Second Amendment's language is better read to protect nearly anyone in the country. He said reading the amendment to exclude those who aren't part of the political community doesn't work because the average American wasn't allowed to vote or participate in other key political functions during the Founding Era. Yet they did have their gun rights protected.

He also argued that denying gun rights to immigrants in the country unlawfully, which is only a misdemeanor, necessitates adopting a legal standard that would put everyone else's gun rights at risk. Still, Larosiere acknowledged the recent ruling is an outlier and the Supreme Court is unlikely to take up a similar case anytime soon. But he argued gun-rights proponents should embrace the ruling and the logic that led to it.

Special Guest: Matt Larosiere.