<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" encoding="UTF-8" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:googleplay="http://www.google.com/schemas/play-podcasts/1.0" xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd" xmlns:fireside="http://fireside.fm/modules/rss/fireside">
  <channel>
    <fireside:hostname>app02</fireside:hostname>
    <fireside:genDate>Sat, 10 Oct 2026 22:14:09 +0000</fireside:genDate>
    <generator>Fireside (https://fireside.fm)</generator>
    <title>The Weekly Reload Podcast - Episodes Tagged with “Smith And Wesson”</title>
    <link>https://thereload.fireside.fm/tags/smith%20and%20wesson</link>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2026 05:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
    <description>A podcast from The Reload that offers sober, serious firearms reporting and analysis. It focuses on gun policy, politics, and culture. Tune in to hear from Reload Founder Stephen Gutowski and special guests from across the gun world each week.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <itunes:type>episodic</itunes:type>
    <itunes:subtitle>A podcast featuring The Reload's Stephen Gutowski</itunes:subtitle>
    <itunes:author>Stephen Gutowski</itunes:author>
    <itunes:summary>A podcast from The Reload that offers sober, serious firearms reporting and analysis. It focuses on gun policy, politics, and culture. Tune in to hear from Reload Founder Stephen Gutowski and special guests from across the gun world each week.</itunes:summary>
    <itunes:image href="https://media24.fireside.fm/file/fireside-images-2024/podcasts/images/0/006abb54-2cee-4879-907f-1104e1df2e3f/cover.jpg?v=17"/>
    <itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
    <itunes:keywords>gun news, gun politics, firearms, policy, politics, culture, gun culture, gun ownership</itunes:keywords>
    <itunes:owner>
      <itunes:name>Stephen Gutowski</itunes:name>
      <itunes:email>gutowski@thereload.com</itunes:email>
    </itunes:owner>
<itunes:category text="News">
  <itunes:category text="Politics"/>
</itunes:category>
<itunes:category text="News"/>
<itunes:category text="News">
  <itunes:category text="News Commentary"/>
</itunes:category>
<item>
  <title>Guntuber Subpoenaed By Gun-Control Group in Mass Shooting Liability Case (Ft. TFB TV's James Reeves)</title>
  <link>https://thereload.fireside.fm/guntuber-subpoenaed-by-gun-control-group-in-mass-shooting-liability-case-ft-tfb-tv-s-james-reeves</link>
  <guid isPermaLink="false">6fd3f914-e618-43c3-a28a-5588c9e2dae1</guid>
  <pubDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2026 05:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
  <author>Stephen Gutowski</author>
  <enclosure url="https://chrt.fm/track/418E8A/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/006abb54-2cee-4879-907f-1104e1df2e3f/6fd3f914-e618-43c3-a28a-5588c9e2dae1.mp3" length="97607621" type="audio/mpeg"/>
  <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
  <itunes:author>Stephen Gutowski</itunes:author>
  <itunes:subtitle>Host Stephen Gutowski and TFB TV's James Reeves discuss the latter being subpoenaed in a gun-control case against Smith and Wesson.</itunes:subtitle>
  <itunes:duration>1:07:46</itunes:duration>
  <itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
  <itunes:image href="https://media24.fireside.fm/file/fireside-images-2024/podcasts/images/0/006abb54-2cee-4879-907f-1104e1df2e3f/cover.jpg?v=17"/>
  <description>&lt;p&gt;This week, we're talking to the man at the center of a brand new legal fight in the gun world.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
  <itunes:keywords>guns, gun politics, second amendment, 2nd amendment, gun news, stephen gutowski, james reeves, smith and wesson, everytown, highland park, mass shooting, plcaa</itunes:keywords>
  <content:encoded>
    <![CDATA[<p>This week, we're talking to the man at the center of a brand new legal fight in the gun world.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p><p>Special Guest: James Reeves.</p>]]>
  </content:encoded>
  <itunes:summary>
    <![CDATA[<p>This week, we're talking to the man at the center of a brand new legal fight in the gun world.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p><p>Special Guest: James Reeves.</p>]]>
  </itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
  <title>SCOTUSblog's Zach Shemtob on the Court's New Gun Decisions</title>
  <link>https://thereload.fireside.fm/scotusblogs-zach-shemtob-on-the-courts-new-gun-decisions</link>
  <guid isPermaLink="false">c4e7b689-2c01-42fe-98ba-7e9181cbf44d</guid>
  <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2025 05:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
  <author>Stephen Gutowski</author>
  <enclosure url="https://chrt.fm/track/418E8A/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/006abb54-2cee-4879-907f-1104e1df2e3f/c4e7b689-2c01-42fe-98ba-7e9181cbf44d.mp3" length="68738827" type="audio/mpeg"/>
  <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
  <itunes:author>Stephen Gutowski</itunes:author>
  <itunes:subtitle>Host Stephen Gutowski and guest Zach Shemtob discuss the Supreme Court's decision not to take up an AR ban case and its unanimous decision against Mexico.</itunes:subtitle>
  <itunes:duration>47:36</itunes:duration>
  <itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
  <itunes:image href="https://media24.fireside.fm/file/fireside-images-2024/podcasts/images/0/006abb54-2cee-4879-907f-1104e1df2e3f/cover.jpg?v=17"/>
  <description>&lt;p&gt;This week, the Supreme Court cleared its slate of gun cases.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
  <itunes:keywords>guns, gun politics, second amendment, 2nd amendment, gun news, stephen gutowski, kevin shemtob, scotusblog, supreme court, scotus, mexico, smith and wesson, snope, maryland, assault weapons ban, ar-15, ar</itunes:keywords>
  <content:encoded>
    <![CDATA[<p>This week, the Supreme Court cleared its slate of gun cases.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p><p>Special Guest: Zach Shemtob.</p>]]>
  </content:encoded>
  <itunes:summary>
    <![CDATA[<p>This week, the Supreme Court cleared its slate of gun cases.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p><p>Special Guest: Zach Shemtob.</p>]]>
  </itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
  <title>Unpacking Smith &amp; Wesson v. Mexico's Oral Arguments (ft. Professor Dru Stevenson)</title>
  <link>https://thereload.fireside.fm/unpacking-smith-wesson-v-mexicos-oral-arguments-ft-professor-dru-stevenson</link>
  <guid isPermaLink="false">7fd936fb-270f-4374-adbc-f77ed50f22a0</guid>
  <pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2025 05:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
  <author>Stephen Gutowski</author>
  <enclosure url="https://chrt.fm/track/418E8A/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/006abb54-2cee-4879-907f-1104e1df2e3f/7fd936fb-270f-4374-adbc-f77ed50f22a0.mp3" length="92882078" type="audio/mpeg"/>
  <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
  <itunes:author>Stephen Gutowski</itunes:author>
  <itunes:subtitle>Host Stephen Gutowski and guest Dru Stevenson discuss Supreme Court oral arguments in Mexico's liability suit against American gunmakers.</itunes:subtitle>
  <itunes:duration>1:04:21</itunes:duration>
  <itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
  <itunes:image href="https://media24.fireside.fm/file/fireside-images-2024/podcasts/images/0/006abb54-2cee-4879-907f-1104e1df2e3f/cover.jpg?v=17"/>
  <description>&lt;p&gt;This week, we've got a longer episode than usual.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;That's because we're doing a deep dive into oral arguments for the Supreme Court's latest gun case, Smith &amp;amp; Wesson v. Mexico. Most observers, including me, thought Mexico faired poorly in its attempt to move forward with liability claims against American gunmakers over cartel violence south of the border. However, Professor Dru Stevenson, who studies gun policy at Southern Texas College of Law, had a bit of a different take.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;So, I wanted to have him on the show to go through why he thought the justices may be more sympathetic toward Mexico's claims than most other people thought. While he still believes Mexico's suit is unlikely to make it through the Supreme Court unscathed, Stevenson argued the justices might allow part of it to proceed. And, even if not, he said The Court may end up laying out what amounts to a framework for how to successfully pierce gun industry liability protections in future suits.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Get a 30-day free trial for a subscription to The Dispatch here: &lt;a href="https://thedispatch.com/join-offer-reload/?utm_source=thereload&amp;amp;utm_medium=partnerships-podcast&amp;amp;utm_campaign=0125" rel="nofollow noopener"&gt;https://thedispatch.com/join-offer-reload/?utm_source=thereload&amp;amp;utm_medium=partnerships-podcast&amp;amp;utm_campaign=0125&lt;/a&gt; Special Guest: Dru Stevenson.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
  <itunes:keywords>guns, gun politics, second amendment, 2nd amendment, gun news, stephen gutowski, supreme court, dru stevenson, scotus, smith and wesson</itunes:keywords>
  <content:encoded>
    <![CDATA[<p>This week, we've got a longer episode than usual.</p>

<p>That's because we're doing a deep dive into oral arguments for the Supreme Court's latest gun case, Smith &amp; Wesson v. Mexico. Most observers, including me, thought Mexico faired poorly in its attempt to move forward with liability claims against American gunmakers over cartel violence south of the border. However, Professor Dru Stevenson, who studies gun policy at Southern Texas College of Law, had a bit of a different take.</p>

<p>So, I wanted to have him on the show to go through why he thought the justices may be more sympathetic toward Mexico's claims than most other people thought. While he still believes Mexico's suit is unlikely to make it through the Supreme Court unscathed, Stevenson argued the justices might allow part of it to proceed. And, even if not, he said The Court may end up laying out what amounts to a framework for how to successfully pierce gun industry liability protections in future suits.</p>

<p>Get a 30-day free trial for a subscription to The Dispatch here: <a href="https://thedispatch.com/join-offer-reload/?utm_source=thereload&amp;utm_medium=partnerships-podcast&amp;utm_campaign=0125" rel="nofollow noopener">https://thedispatch.com/join-offer-reload/?utm_source=thereload&amp;utm_medium=partnerships-podcast&amp;utm_campaign=0125</a></p><p>Special Guest: Dru Stevenson.</p>]]>
  </content:encoded>
  <itunes:summary>
    <![CDATA[<p>This week, we've got a longer episode than usual.</p>

<p>That's because we're doing a deep dive into oral arguments for the Supreme Court's latest gun case, Smith &amp; Wesson v. Mexico. Most observers, including me, thought Mexico faired poorly in its attempt to move forward with liability claims against American gunmakers over cartel violence south of the border. However, Professor Dru Stevenson, who studies gun policy at Southern Texas College of Law, had a bit of a different take.</p>

<p>So, I wanted to have him on the show to go through why he thought the justices may be more sympathetic toward Mexico's claims than most other people thought. While he still believes Mexico's suit is unlikely to make it through the Supreme Court unscathed, Stevenson argued the justices might allow part of it to proceed. And, even if not, he said The Court may end up laying out what amounts to a framework for how to successfully pierce gun industry liability protections in future suits.</p>

<p>Get a 30-day free trial for a subscription to The Dispatch here: <a href="https://thedispatch.com/join-offer-reload/?utm_source=thereload&amp;utm_medium=partnerships-podcast&amp;utm_campaign=0125" rel="nofollow noopener">https://thedispatch.com/join-offer-reload/?utm_source=thereload&amp;utm_medium=partnerships-podcast&amp;utm_campaign=0125</a></p><p>Special Guest: Dru Stevenson.</p>]]>
  </itunes:summary>
</item>
<item>
  <title>CEO Killer’s Gun Offers Clues; Biden Pardons Hunter's Gun Crimes</title>
  <link>https://thereload.fireside.fm/ceo-killers-gun-offers-clues-biden-pardons-hunters-gun-crimes</link>
  <guid isPermaLink="false">ca25e09b-1012-4846-b876-790e1b4a72fc</guid>
  <pubDate>Fri, 06 Dec 2024 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
  <author>Stephen Gutowski</author>
  <enclosure url="https://chrt.fm/track/418E8A/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/006abb54-2cee-4879-907f-1104e1df2e3f/ca25e09b-1012-4846-b876-790e1b4a72fc.mp3" length="63476195" type="audio/mpeg"/>
  <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
  <itunes:author>Stephen Gutowski</itunes:author>
  <itunes:subtitle>Host Jake Fogleman and Reload Founder Stephen Gutowski detail what the </itunes:subtitle>
  <itunes:duration>43:59</itunes:duration>
  <itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
  <itunes:image href="https://media24.fireside.fm/file/fireside-images-2024/podcasts/images/0/006abb54-2cee-4879-907f-1104e1df2e3f/cover.jpg?v=17"/>
  <description>&lt;p&gt;Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I break down what we can glean about the UnitedHealthcare CEO's assassin based on surveillance footage of his gun. We also cover President Joe Biden's pardon of his son Hunter and what that means for Second Amendment challenges related to his gun crimes. We wrap up by discussing the trend of Trump's law enforcement cabinet picks having a history of supporting red flag laws, the US House of Representatives' new legal brief in Smith and Wesson's upcoming Supreme Court case, and what to make of new reports that Trump's relationship with the NRA has soured. &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Get 20% Off a Reload Membership: &lt;a href="https://thereload.com/membership-sales/" rel="nofollow noopener"&gt;https://thereload.com/membership-sales/&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
</description>
  <itunes:keywords>guns, gun politics, second amendment, 2nd amendment, gun news, stephen gutowski, jake fogleman, ceo killer, joe biden, donald trump, supreme court, mexico, smith and wesson, nra</itunes:keywords>
  <content:encoded>
    <![CDATA[<p>Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I break down what we can glean about the UnitedHealthcare CEO's assassin based on surveillance footage of his gun. We also cover President Joe Biden's pardon of his son Hunter and what that means for Second Amendment challenges related to his gun crimes. We wrap up by discussing the trend of Trump's law enforcement cabinet picks having a history of supporting red flag laws, the US House of Representatives' new legal brief in Smith and Wesson's upcoming Supreme Court case, and what to make of new reports that Trump's relationship with the NRA has soured. </p>

<p>Get 20% Off a Reload Membership: <a href="https://thereload.com/membership-sales/" rel="nofollow noopener">https://thereload.com/membership-sales/</a></p>]]>
  </content:encoded>
  <itunes:summary>
    <![CDATA[<p>Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I break down what we can glean about the UnitedHealthcare CEO's assassin based on surveillance footage of his gun. We also cover President Joe Biden's pardon of his son Hunter and what that means for Second Amendment challenges related to his gun crimes. We wrap up by discussing the trend of Trump's law enforcement cabinet picks having a history of supporting red flag laws, the US House of Representatives' new legal brief in Smith and Wesson's upcoming Supreme Court case, and what to make of new reports that Trump's relationship with the NRA has soured. </p>

<p>Get 20% Off a Reload Membership: <a href="https://thereload.com/membership-sales/" rel="nofollow noopener">https://thereload.com/membership-sales/</a></p>]]>
  </itunes:summary>
</item>
  </channel>
</rss>
