To examine the DOJ's track record, we have the Second Amendment Foundation's Kostas Moros on the show. He has been willing to defend the administration's overall approach to gun policy and to criticize moves he believes are likely to produce significant setbacks. He argued that the DOJ has actually been as pro-gun as any in modern history.

In fact, he said a lot of the disappointment from online gun activists stems from bad expectation setting. He argued the DOJ was never likely to stop defending all federal gun laws, nor would that move guarantee the kind of gun-rights wins some believe it would. He also said the administration's moves to sue localities over alleged violations of the Second Amendment, as well as their efforts to back gun-rights challenges, even up to the Supreme Court, create a positive case for why it has been a good ally to gun-rights activists.

Still, Moros admitted the DOJ has been pretty all over the place in its arguments at times. And he further criticized a new legal filing that stands to undermine a serious breakthrough in the gun-rights movement's fight against magazine bans. He said Jeanine Pirro, who Donald Trump appointed as US Attorney for Washington, DC, and who he is reportedly considering making the Attorney General, intervened to ask a DC court to reconsider its ruling against the city's magazine ban.

Moros argued Pirro didn't need to say anything at all, given that she isn't actively defending the law, and that her filing makes it more likely the case will be reheard. That, he noted, could undermine the all-important circuit split on the question of magazine bans. Ultimately, Moros argued, that could keep the Supreme Court from settling the question and further sour gun activists' view of the administration.

Special Guest: Kostas Moros.

Stories covered:
-https://thereload.com/new-york-agrees-to-stop-requiring-social-media-disclosures-for-gun-permits/
-https://thereload.com/canadian-mandatory-buyback-nets-few-turn-ins-despite-spending-tens-of-thousands-per-firearm/
-https://thereload.com/analysis-people-transporting-guns-have-long-enjoyed-broad-protection-under-the-law/
-https://www.courthousenews.com/eighth-circuit-presses-challenge-to-minnesota-gun-permit-law/
-https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/15/us/politics/brandon-hererra-guns-youtube.html?unlocked_article_code=1.TVA.zoAS.4JAqMFpS9nIL&smid=url-share
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/californias-unconstitutional-kids-gun-ad-law-is-fully-blocked

The Court spent nearly two hours debating the merits of US v. Hemani. They were trying to figure out whether the modern ban on drug users, even just those who smoke weed, is relevantly similar to Founding Era laws related to "habitual drunkards." The back-and-forth seemed to create some interesting splits among the justices and scrambled the Court's usual ideological coalitions.

To analyze the fallout from oral arguments, we have the Independence Institute's David Kopel back on the show. He has been one of the most influential Second Amendment scholars over the past 30 years, being cited in cases from the Supreme Court on down the federal judiciary. He filed a brief with the National Rifle Association arguing that the justices should side with Hemani in his challenge to the ban.

Kopel said he was a bit surprised at how oral arguments seemed to go for Hemani. He had expected greater pushback from more of the justices, especially the liberal bloc. He said the majority of the Court appeared skeptical of the law's constitutionality.

However, he said it is always possible that a justice doesn't vote the way their questions might imply. It's possible the liberals side with the government or Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, who were most skeptical of Hemani, end up going the other way. Still, he concluded that whatever the Court does in the case, it'll likely have a major impact just on the basis of how fresh Second Amendment jurisprudence is at this moment.

Special Guest: David Kopel.

Links:
https://thereload.com/dcs-highest-court-strikes-down-ammo-magazine-ban/
https://thereload.com/virginia-gun-sales-surge-as-democrats-move-dozens-of-new-restrictions/
https://thereload.com/supreme-court-skeptical-of-marijuana-user-gun-ban-in-oral-arguments/
https://thereload.com/analysis-the-path-for-the-government-to-win-scotus-weed-and-guns-case-member-exclusive/
https://thereload.com/analysis-have-gun-rights-advocates-found-a-way-around-the-machinegun-sales-ban-member-exclusive/
https://wvmetronews.com/2026/03/03/machine-gun-legislation-gets-jammed-up-in-west-virginia-senate/
https://www.texastribune.org/2026/03/05/tony-gonzales-drops-out-republican-primary-texas-23rd-district-congress/

To do that, we have one of the people who was directly involved: Wolford's lawyer, Alan Beck. He joined the show to give us a preview of the case before oral arguments. Now, he's back to give us a rundown of how everything went from his perspective.

Beck said being in the room was an entirely different experience from listening to arguments online or reading a transcript. He said the justices were more expressive than many of the other federal judges he's argued in front of before, and it gave him extra insight into how arguments were going. He noted that at different points some of them even became visibly exasperated with some of what his opponent was saying, especially during the portion where they discussed a Black Code as evidence for Hawaii's modern gun-carry restriction.

Beck said he believes a majority of the justices favored his position. He said Justice Amy Coney Barrett appeared skeptical of his view about Second Amendment rights on private property, but he believes she came to understand his position after a long back-and-forth. Meanwhile, he said he thought his argument about the incompatibility of Hawaii's restrictions with American history won over a lot of the justices, perhaps even Justice Elana Kagan.

Special Guest: Alan Beck.

The Department of Justice recently made headlines, and garnered backlash, after it defended the federal Switchblade Act in court on the same day it filed suit against Washington, DC's "assault weapons" ban. To discuss the state of play in that case and against other switchblade regulations, we have Knife Rights Inc's founder Doug Ritter on the show. His group is responsible for the federal case and numerous cases against state laws around the country.

Ritter described the way switchblades, often described as automatic knives and sometimes vaguely defined, are regulated. He said the federal Switchblade Act effectively, or perhaps ineffectively, bans most interstate sales of the knives as well as their carry in certain places. He noted several states go even further and ban their possession outright.

In the case against DOJ, Ritter said his group is arguing that knives--switchblades included--are "arms" protected by the Second Amendment. He argued they fit the definition the Supreme Court has pointed to in previous cases and it makes little sense for the Trump Administration to argue AR-15s are protected by knives aren't.

Ritter further criticized the way that DOJ defended the Switchblade Act. He argued the DOJ's logic, which centers on the concealability of automatic knives and their appeal to criminals, could be and has been used to defend restrictions on AR-15s or even handguns. He dismissed the historical tradition of regulating knives cited by the DOJ as too thin to stand.

He also accused the administration of being schizophrenic on the Second Amendment.

He went on to describe his group's strategy in challenging state knife restrictions. Ritter said they filed suits in multiple federal circuits, hoping to create a split that puts pressure on the High Court to get involved. 

Special Guest: Doug Ritter.

One of the perks of a membership is the ability to ask questions during our Q&A podcasts (and to join the show in a member segment). It's been long enough now that a new Q&A makes sense. After all, a lot has happened in the world of gun policy and politics.

Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I cover questions on all sorts of topics. That includes the Supreme Court's two new Second Amendment cases, the High Court's reluctance to take up some of the highest-profile gun cases, and the justices' thinking around big Second Amendment cases. We also discuss the ins and outs of permitless carry, President Trump and Biden's performance on gun policy, and whether there's reason to think there's about to be a circuit split on the constitutionality of so-called assault weapons bans.

Last week, we had Second Amendment scholar David Kopel on to discuss the big picture of the upcoming Supreme Court term. The week before that, we had gun-rights lawyer Alan Beck on the show to discuss his Supreme Court case, Wolford v. Lopez.  Now, we're looking at the other Second Amendment case with a man who has followed the issue at its center: Reason Magazine's Jacob Sullum.

That issue? Marijuana users possessing firearms.

Sullum explained that the federal ban on drug users owning guns potentially impacts millions of Americans. He noted it is rarely actually enforced, but he said the possibility hangs over people in nearly 40 states. He argued that's why Hemani's case could have huge implications nationwide.

However, he noted Hemani's case is more complicated than a straightforward weed and guns prosecution. Even though the charge is only related to Hemani's marijuana use, Sullum said the government has accused him of much worse--including terror-related crimes. He said the crossover between drugs and guns could scramble the usual dynamics of the Court, but that's no guarantee.

Special Guest: Jacob Sullum.

That's because this slate will be the biggest yet. Now, sure, that still only means they have two Second Amendment claims to consider. But that's more than ever before, and it comes just a few months after many gun-rights activists thought the Court was wavering on the deciding key cases.

So, to discuss what we should make of this Supreme Court term, we've got Independence Institute research director David Kopel back on the show. He is one of the leading scholars in the gun-rights movement, and his work helped develop and legitimize the individual right theory of the Second Amendment. He has been cited in numerous Supreme Court gun opinions and is an odd-on favorite to be quoted again this year.

Kopel argued it is notable that the Supreme Court is taking up more Second Amendment cases than ever before. He said there are outcomes that could dramatically alter the legal landscape for gun-carry or people who smoke marijuana and own guns. However, he also noted that narrow rulings could still alter the course of Second Amendment caselaw, given the Court's infrequent involvement in the issue to date.

Kopel said every word a Supreme Court justice utters or writes in the course of deciding these two cases will be pored over by the lower courts for years to come.

Special Guest: David Kopel.

Sure, that number is only two. But that's still a major development for a Court that's taken fewer than ten Second Amendment cases in its entire history. One of those chosen few cases is now Wolford v. Lopez, a challenge to Hawaii requiring licensed gun carriers to get explicit permission before entering publicly accessible private property--including stores or restaurants.

Alan Beck is the gun-rights lawyer behind that suit. He'll be arguing it at the Supreme Court. And he's the guest on this week's show.

Beck explains how Hawaii's law swaps the default presumption from one where gun carriers are generally allowed to carry into one where they aren't. He claimed the change has made it nearly impossible to legally carry in public. He then outlined his plan for convincing the justices that the law is out of line with the historical tradition of gun regulation in America, as the Court's current Second Amendment test requires.

Special Guest: Alan Beck.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) issued a stay on an emergency basis in Noem v. Perdomo. Justice Brett Kavanaugh's statement in that case inspired UC Law Professor Rory Little to write a piece for SCOTUSblog on its potential implications in areas beyond immigration enforcement, including firearms law. He joins the show to elaborate on why he finds Kavanaugh's reasoning dangerous.

Little said Kavanaugh's holding that immigration agents could use a person's apparent race, accent, and location as justification to detain them is troubling. He argued the idea that agents should be able to involuntarily stop and question somebody based on the idea that some percentage of similarly situated people may have broken the law could be turned on all sorts of people. He used gun shows as a prime example, arguing they primarily attract white men and can sometimes be the site of illegal sales.

He argued an administration taking an aggressive approach to federal gun law enforcement could use Kavanaugh's logic to detain and question everyone at a gun show in hopes of catching the few that may be breaking the law. Little said that moving from a probable cause standard for detentions that relies on individualized suspicion to one based on demographics or probabilities would have far-reaching consequences for all sorts of Americans. He argued it's difficult to see how Kavanaugh's logic could be contained to immigration either, though he also emphasized Perdomo is still at a preliminary stage and other members of the majority haven't fully articulated their view on the matter.

Special Guest: Rory Little.

On the left, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz (D.) is calling for a special session of the legislature to pass a gun-control package likely to include an AR-15 ban. On the right, the Department of Justice is reportedly considering an effort to ban all trans people from owning guns.

The Second Amendment Foundation is opposed to both of these ideas. So, we have Kostas Moros, a lawyer who was recently hired by the gun-rights group, back on the show to explain why he doesn't like the proposals and how they might fare legally and politically.

Moros said any attempt to blanket-ban people who identify as trans or who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria from owning guns would run into serious legal and constitutional trouble. He explained that current law requires an individual finding of dangerousness for the government to strip anyone of their gun rights on the basis of mental health. He argued, even if Congress changed the law, it would run afoul of the Second Amendment, and the Supreme Court would likely strike it down.

Moros argued the same is true for the potential "assault weapons" ban that could come out of Minnesota. He said four Supreme Court justices have already signaled they'd strike down a ban, and a Minnesota law could actually provide further reason for the Court to get involved.

Special Guest: Kostas Moros.

A federal appeals court just upheld the zones against a Second Amendment challenge for what may be the first time in the post-Bruen era. Cooke argued the law is bad policy, but he agreed it doesn't violate the Second Amendment.

Instead, Cooke argued it's actually an unconstitutional expansion of the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce. He noted the law had already been struck down by the Supreme Court over this issue once before. However, Congress passed a new version soon afterward. Cooke said the new law has the same problem the old one had.

We also talked about the current push to partially repeal the National Firearms Act through budget reconciliation. Cooke again said he'd like to see repeal make it through the process, but he had doubts that delisting silencers or short-barrel shotguns can clear the Byrd Rule. He also expressed some skepticism about whether language in the bill to try and nullify state NFA mirror laws would work in practice.

Special Guest: Charles Cooke.

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.

That's why we've got gun-rights lawyer Alan Beck on the show. He's currently representing a client who is fighting Hawaii's age restrictions. In the wake of the Eleventh Circuit upholding Florida's gun sales ban for those under 21 by pointing to how contract law limited the same age group's ability to buy guns, he researched the question.

He argues the evidence contradicts the Eleventh Circuit's holding. He said rulings from the Founding Era suggest those under 21 couldn't enter into contracts for things that weren't necessities, but that was actually a pretty broad exception. He said most guns would have been considered necessities because they were needed to hunt, perform mandated militia service, and provide for general security.

Beck also gave a working-lawyers view of the Supreme Court's Second Amendment jurisprudence and where it's headed. He described the details of his latest case at the High Court and what the cert application process is like.

Special Guest: Alan Beck.

To do that, we have the Independence Institute's David Kopel on the show. Kopel has written extensively on gun policy and been cited repeatedly at the Supreme Court. So, there are few people better qualified to dissect what the VanDerStok ruling means.

Kopel argued the decision upholding the ATF's "ghost gun" kit ban is relatively narrow, but still likely applies to more than just the Polymer80 "buy build shoot" kits discussed at length by the majority. He also explained why the majority decided the case as a facial challenge and why he, along with Justices Thomas and Alito, disagrees with the use of that standard.

He said the Trump Administration could have tried to intervene in this case, but didn't move fast enough. However, he argued that it can still try to undo the rule despite the decision. Kopel also gave his view on where the balance of the court lies on gun issues and whether there's a reliable way to read what they might do with other pending gun cases.

Get a 30-day free trial for a subscription to The Dispatch here: https://thedispatch.com/join-offer-reload/?utm_source=thereload&utm_medium=partnerships-podcast&utm_campaign=0125

Special Guest: David Kopel.

Get a 30-day free trial for a subscription to The Dispatch here: https://thedispatch.com/join-offer-reload/?utm_source=thereload&utm_medium=partnerships-podcast&utm_campaign=0125

That's because we're doing a deep dive into oral arguments for the Supreme Court's latest gun case, Smith & 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.

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.

Get a 30-day free trial for a subscription to The Dispatch here: https://thedispatch.com/join-offer-reload/?utm_source=thereload&utm_medium=partnerships-podcast&utm_campaign=0125

Special Guest: Dru Stevenson.

Get 20% Off a Reload Membership: https://thereload.com/membership-sales/

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

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

Click this link for your free trial from our sponsor The Dispatch: https://thedispatch.com/join-offer-reload/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=reload0624

Follow this link for your free trial at The Dispatch:
https://thedispatch.com/join-offer-reload/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=reload0624

So, we've got one of the top pro-gun scholars in the country on the show to break down what The Court did and didn't hold. Independence Institute's David Kopel has been at the forefront of the Second Amendment fight for decades, with citations in federal court decisions coast to coast and at the Supreme Court itself. He also filed a brief in Rahimi that appears to have significantly influenced the majority's thinking.

Kopel lays out the good, bad, and ugly of the ruling that upheld the domestic violence restraining order gun ban. He said he wasn't surprised The Court upheld Rahimi's conviction, given a lower court found him dangerous. He also agreed with some of the warnings about how the majority loosened the standard for the Bruen test that Justice Clarance Thomas included in his lengthy dissent.

However, Kopel said he was overall pleased with the Rahimi decision's outcome. He argued it gave credence to future challenges to the same law by defendants who don't have the same lengthy criminal record as Rahimi did. He also predicted how the case might impact other Second Amendment cases pending in the lower courts.

Follow this link for your free trial at The Dispatch:
https://thedispatch.com/join-offer-reload/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=reload0624

Special Guest: David Kopel.

Follow this link for your free trial at The Dispatch:
https://thedispatch.com/join-offer-reload/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=reload0624

Follow this link for your free trial at The Dispatch:
https://thedispatch.com/join-offer-reload/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=reload0624

Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University, joins the show to give us his insight into this case and the Court's recent uptick in gun cases.

He argued that the Court's acceptance of two cases challenging ATF administrative power alongside an NRA First Amendment case and an actual Second Amendment case should be read as an increased appetite for gun cases. He noted that the Supreme Court has actually been taking fewer and fewer overall cases in recent years but more and more gun-related ones. He doesn't think that can be brushed aside, even if most of the cases don't deal with Second Amendment claims.

Still, Professor Adler said he isn't confident the Court will side with the gun-rights plaintiffs in the so-called ghost gun case. He argued the way they intervened in the lower court case to issue stays on multiple rulings against the ATF should be read as tell for where the justices plan to go on the merits. He said a move like that might be more predictive of intent than most stays issued by federal courts.

You can listen to the show on your favorite podcasting app or by clicking here. Video of the episode is available on our YouTube channel. Reload Members get access on Sunday, as always. Everyone else can listen on Monday.

Special Guest: Jonathan H. Alder.

On Monday, the High Court held oral arguments in the case. So, we've got FIRE's Bob Corn-Revere on the show to discuss how those went. He filed a brief in support of the NRA on behalf of the group. But he also has a long history in First Amendment litigation, including at the Supreme Court.

He explained the basics of the case. Then he walked through why he believes former New York financial regulator Maria Vullo's efforts to get insurance companies to drop the NRA over its "gun promotion" activities ran afoul of the group's free speech rights. He also reacted to the questions each justice asked during arguments and gave some insight into what they tell us about how the Court is leaning.

Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about a report that shows the Maine shooter could have and should have been disarmed.

Special Guest: Bob Corn-Revere.

Former NRA board member Judge Phillip Journey was among the eight insiders the jury said didn't receive protection when he spoke out about the group's mismanagement. He said the jury came to the correct conclusion. And he argued Judge Joel Cohen should appoint a monitor to make sure corruption is rooted out of the organization for good.

Journey said he was sympathetic toward criticism of New York Attorney General Letitia James's (D.) political motivations. But he also said he had no choice in testifying at the trial, and the facts of the case were plainly against the NRA's current and former leadership.

He argued drastic change is necessary for the NRA to survive and return to form. He explained the platform he and three other board candidates are running on in the current NRA election. Journey said he hopes the verdict and LaPierre's resignation will convince many current board members to join the reform effort, but acknowledged he hasn't gotten very far to this point and it's likely to remain an uphill internal fight.

Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I dissect oral arguments in the Supreme Court's bump stock ban case.

Special Guest: Phillip Journey.

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.

Kopel was on the show about a month ago describing his brief in the case. And the issue in that brief came up in oral arguments. Kopel reacts to the discussion around the more problematic section of the federal law that bars those subject to domestic violence restraining orders from owning guns.

He also gave his view on the government retreating from the idea that anyone who isn't "law-abiding" or "responsible" can be disarmed. Kopel said that retreat was significant and could have implications for other Second Amendment cases coming down the line. At the same time, he said Rahimi's lawyer had to make his own retreats and the Justices seemed unsympathetic to his overarching argument.

Kopel predicted the Court would probably release its ruling before the summer and he expected it would uphold the ban. But he said the details of the ruling are harder to predict.

Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss the massive upswing in Israeli civilian gun ownership after the October 7th attacks.

Special Guest: David Kopel.

David Kopel joins the podcast to explain his amicus brief in United States v. Rahimi. He is one of the most accomplished scholars on the topic. His work has been cited in countless federal court decisions and all of the Supreme Court's major Second Amendment rulings.

In Rahimi, Kopel argued the federal law barring those under domestic violence restraining orders from owning guns is unconstitutional. He said the problem lies in a provision that doesn't require any finding that the subject of the restraining order is dangerous. But he also noted the problem could be fixed with a single word being changed.

He argued Rahimi is the kind of person who should be barred from owning guns. However, he said the law doesn't pass the Court's history and tradition test as it is currently written.

Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I explain how Israel is loosening its gun laws in the wake of terror attacks.

Special Guest: David Kopel.

Smith, who also hosts the Four Boxes Diner YouTube channel, joins to talk about the ins and outs of United States v. Rahimi. The Supreme Court will have to decide whether the Second Amendment protects the right of those subject to a domestic violence restraining order to own guns. And, as Smith notes, it will be doing so for one of the least sympathetic defendants imaginable because Rahimi is the suspect in a long list of violent crimes.

That means the Court could rule to uphold the restriction, according to Smith. And that's why, he argues, the case was appealed straight up to the Supreme Court by Attorney General Merrick Garland even though there was another level of appeal he could have gone to first.

Still, Smith isn't convinced the case is that cut and dry. He argued the Court may well find the lower bar of evidence required to issue a restraining order compared to obtaining a criminal conviction could cause enough justices to turn against the restriction. And he said the Court has shown it is not as sensitive to public criticism as in previous years.

He said the decision to take this case to SCOTUS may backfire on Garland, but also admitted it's not clear where the Court will come down.

Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about President Biden's "ghost gun" ban being vacated. And I discuss my continued frustrations with trying to renew my concealed carry permit.

Special Guest: Mark W. Smith.

That's why we have New York State Jewish Gun Club member Rabbi Tzvi Hershel Goldstein on the show. He is directly affected by the new ruling, and his group helped fund the case against it.

He argues the ban on worshipers carrying at synagogue violates not just his Second Amendment rights but his First Amendment rights too. He said the group plans to appeal the decision and expects to win at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, though the slower pace of this case may result in the issue being decided before they get there. Still, Goldstein said the club is willing to take the case all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.

But that court will have to decide another gun case first.

Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about the breaking news that the Supreme Court has agreed to take a new Second Amendment case. We go over the details of the case and try to read some tea leaves on where the Court may come down.

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.

But the sign comes in the form of a complex legal maneuver that needs some explaining. That's why we have author and pro-gun lawyer Mark W. Smith on the show to suss out exactly what's going on and what it means.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who oversees the Seventh Circuit, asked Naperville, Illinois, to defend its ban on AR-15s and similar firearms against an emergency request to block the law. Smith said that means she, and probably other members of the Court, may take the rare step of entering an emergency injunction. However, he said that likely depends on what happens with a sister case against Illinois' statewide ban.

Smith argued the common defenses of the bans are lacking. He said the Heller standard that guns in "common use for lawful purposes" can't be banned is the proper way to judge these cases. And he said it is clear AR-15s and the other firearms targetted by assault weapons bans are popular enough to be considered in "common use."

We also talk about Smith's new book Disarmed: What the Ukraine War Teaches Americans About the Right to Bear Arms. He explains why he thinks Ukraine made significant missteps in the lead-up to the Russian invasion by not arming civilians at large until just before hostilities broke out. But he argues Ukraine's newly-armed populous has helped repel the invaders, just as America's did several centuries ago.

Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss the effects of Colorado's decade-long push to tighten its gun laws.

Special Guest: Mark W. Smith.

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.

That's why we've got George Mason University's Robert Leider on the podcast. He is an assistant professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School who has clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas. He has also written extensively about Second Amendment law.

He said District Court Judge David Counts was correct in his conclusion that the ban on those under felony inducement receiving firearms does not have a historical analogue. He said the same is true for the ban on convicted felons possessing guns. Leider argued the text-and-tradition standard imposed by the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen calls both those federal provisions into question alongside a myriad of other gun laws.

Still, he said it's unlikely the felony prohibition will end up in the dustbin. Leider said Counts's solution to the issue, which relies on the historical practice of excluding felons from protections for "the people," may not be the right answer. But he said the federal courts are likely to settle on a justification due in part to the popularity of the restrictions. He argued judicial realism will play a role in how the question plays out even if that's not what the Supreme Court requires.

Leider also talked about what he views as the biggest threat to legal gun carry: New York's novel attempt to prohibit carry in public businesses by default. He said the decision to flip the presumption on its head could be difficult to contend with in court. It forces a faceoff between the right to carry and private property rights that has yet to be litigated.

He said it's not clear how things will turn out and worries the policy could quickly spread to other states. Although, he also lays out a possible Achilles' Heel in New York's implementation.

Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about new polls that show how Beto O'Rourke's gun-control push in Texas is playing out. And Reload Member Bobby Mercer joins the show to talk about how he got into guns as well as what The Liberal Gun Club is and why he joined it.

Special Guest: Robert Leider.

With New York's restrictive gun-carry law being struck down, more people will actually be able to carry in the state. So, it's essential to understand who some of those people are and why they want to carry in the first place. That's why we have Laura E. Adkins on the show.

Adkins recently wrote an opinion piece for The New York Times on her desire to arm herself.

As a single woman living in New York City, she doesn't always feel totally secure. She described a fatal shooting of another woman nearby her home as one reason why. Police response times are another.

Beyond basic safety concerns, though, Adkins said a recent relationship ended poorly, and she now feels increasingly threatened by her former partner. She obtained a restraining order but was told she likely wouldn't qualify for a carry permit under the now-defunct law.

Adkins said she is hopeful the Supreme Court's ruling will mean she can obtain one soon. But she also recognized the new restrictions New York officials implemented in response to the decision will limit her options even if she does get a permit.

Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogelman and I discuss the Congressional reaction to the July 4th mass shooting.

Special Guest: Laura E. Adkins.

That's why this week we're joined by one of the top pro-gun thinkers out there: National Review's Charles Cooke.

Cooke has already written extensively on the ruling and the legislation. He said both would have far-reaching consequences.

He argued the ruling puts the Second Amendment back on par with the First Amendment. It will not only eliminate restrictive "may-issue" gun-carry permitting, but it will cast a shadow over all kinds of other modern gun laws. Any regulation without a clear place in the founding-era tradition of gun laws will have a difficult time in court.

As for the new federal gun law, Cooke argues the bill was poorly drafted with multiple confusing provisions and apparent drafting errors. He questioned why domestic violence records for "dating partners" are expunged after five years but no other records are. He noted how expansive it will be to make it illegal to sell guns to anyone with a juvenile felony conviction or involuntary commitment or how precarious the new gun dealing license requirements could make selling even a single firearm.

Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman explains a new lawsuit against Colorado police who killed a concealed carrier after he stopped an active shooter.

Special Guest: Charles Cooke.

The National Review senior writer joined the podcast to give some insight into the state of the proposal. He said it will likely be an uphill battle to get the policy through the legislature even with the backing of DeSantis. He also explained the unique nature of Florida's gun laws which lag behind those of other red states despite the Sunshine State's reputation as the "Gunshine State."

Cooke also weighed in on the success of the permitless carry movement thus far. He said the momentum generated by the incredible sweep gun-rights advocates have been able to pull of in such a short period of time will generate enough pressure to get the policy passed in Florida. But, he said, it might not be until next year.

We also look at what Ketanji Brown Jackson's confirmation hearings revealed about her views on the Second Amendment.  She has a sparse record on guns, but she was nominated by a staunch gun-control proponent and the gun-control groups all support her. However, there is some reason to believe she may take a more expansive view of the Second Amendment than previous Democratic nominees.

Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman looks at new data on first-time gun owners and we have another member segment!

Special Guest: Charles Cooke.

Instead of interviewing an expert on a single topic, we're letting Reload members interview us on a bunch of different topics. It's our first Q&A episode!

Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I answer questions on a wide range of stories. What is going on with gun laws and armed civilians in Ukraine? How could it affect American gun politics?

How much control does Wayne LaPierre have over the NRA board?

What's happening with President Biden's pistol brace ban proposal? How does grandfathering play into his plan?

What would it take to get a national reciprocity bill? When could gun owners see carry bans or AR-15 bans come to an end? What effect could the Supreme Court's gun-carry case have on that timeline? How might that same Supreme Court ruling affect demand for guns in deep blue states?

Plus, what's the best way to improve media coverage of gun issues throughout the country?

However, the case remains active. So, former NRA board member Rocky Marshall joined the show this week to discuss the internal fight over the corruption allegations against NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and other members of leadership.

Marshall is one of the few board members to publicly oppose LaPierre and make efforts to remove him from leadership. Last year, he became the first person to run against LaPierre for Executive Vice President.

He said he is glad the Attorney General won't be able to shutter the organization. He also said he believes the evidence shows LaPierre did divert large sums of NRA money to his own personal expenses. Marshall argued the group has been seriously harmed by that corruption and must be reformed if it hopes to survive.

But the board remains almost entirely behind LaPierre. Marshall lost the election to LaPierre in a landslide, and he wasn't renominated to run for the board again this year. Plus, NRA lawyers have accused him of trying to take over control of the NRA for himself.

Marshall said the board is effectively controlled by a small number of board members who are on many of the most important board committees. He argued that group of LaPierre loyalists controls the board nomination process, which goes through the board's nominating committee, and forces internal critics off their committee positions and the board as a whole.

He said the only hope for the NRA is a member-led reform movement and said that's what he is focusing his efforts on now.

Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss where President Biden's Supreme Court nominee may end up on gun law.

Special Guest: Rocky Marshall.

He talked about his recent back and forth with Supreme Court justice Samuel Alito over Texas's new abortion law. We disagreed over whether the same tactic of deferring enforcement to civil suits brought by regular citizens rather than government actors will be tried out by gun-control advocates in some parts of the country. He thinks it won't because activists fear review by the court, but I'm not so sure.

From there, we discuss the court's upcoming gun-carry case and the racist history of various gun-permitting laws in America. He explains why a majority of Black Americans support gun-control measures despite a widespread acknowledgment those laws will be disproportionately used against members of their community.

Then we talked about Beto O'Rourke's plans to run for governor in Adam's adopted home of Texas. We discuss the political practicality of Beto's famous pledge to take everyone's AR-15s and AK-47s. 

We also discuss the rise in minority gun ownership and what it means for the future of gun politics in America.

Plus, I give on-the-ground insight into the re-election of Wayne LaPierre to run the NRA. I was the only reporter sitting outside the board meeting where LaPierre faced his first challenge in years, and I give the details of what went down. And I share the latest gun sales numbers for 2021 now that they've passed 2019's full-year total.

Special Guest: Adam Serwer.

He talks about President Joe Biden's (D.) nominee to head the ATF, David Chipman, and the allegations of racism levied against him by former agents. Smith says Chipman is the wrong man for the job and talks about why the acting director is a better pick.

Smith also responds to recent assertions that the Second Amendment itself is the result of racism. He also discusses the group's Supreme Court brief calling for the end of New York's restrictive "may-issue" concealed carry law due to the historically racist use of such laws. And he gives an update on the group's growth as well as the growth in black gun ownership over the past year.

Plus, I give an update on the horrific situation in Afghanistan including new gun confiscation efforts by the Taliban. And The Reload's newest contributing writer Jake Fogleman stops by to introduce himself!

Special Guest: Philip Smith.

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.