The Weekly Reload Podcast

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I break down the lack of consensus among prominent Second Amendment scholars on why the Supreme Court decided to take up its latest gun carry case and how it is likely to rule on the question. We also discuss their thoughts on why the Court chose not to weigh in on the correct historical era for conducting its text, history, and tradition test.

This week, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a first-of-its-kind civil rights lawsuit against the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department over gun-carry permitting delays.

So, we have a man at the center of the case on the show to discuss it. Kostas Moros is a gun-rights lawyer who works at the Second Amendment Foundation, which is involved in a private suit against the department. He has also been directly impacted by the permitting process, with his own permit having expired as he waits for the department to process his renewal.

He also helped inspire the federal lawsuit. After he publicly advocated for the DOJ to pursue a pattern and practice investigation of the Sheriff's permitting process, the department reached out to him before following through.

He said the DOJ's suit is largely focused on the same claims as the private one, but he thinks it is more than a duplicative effort. He noted the DOJ has more power, prestige, and potential resources than any gun-rights group. He argued DOJ can, and did in this case, require localities to hand over important statistics and documents. They can also obtain a consent decree and oversee the department's permitting process.

Moros dismissed the Sheriff's Department's defenses for the delays. He argued funding or staffing issues aren't a viable excuse for years-long delays, especially when other counties don't have similar problems. Still, he said LA is not the only place the DOJ should consider filing this kind of suit, and he hopes this one is just a precursor to many others.

Special Guest: Kostas Moros.

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about the Supreme Court announcing its decision to hear a new Second Amendment case dealing with Hawaii's so-called Vampire Rule for gun carry this upcoming term. We also talk about the practical impact its decision last term related to gunmaker liability protections is having in the lower courts thus far. Finally, we cover the Trump administration's ongoing rollback of a Biden-era restriction on gun exports, as well as the DOJ's new lawsuit against Los Angeles over concealed carry permits.

This week, we're looking at potential fallout for gun owners from an unexpected area: immigration.

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.

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss a recent ruling out of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld New York's "sensitive places" restrictions for licensed gun carriers. We also cover a Ninth Circuit ruling that sided with a Montana gun owner fighting against a charge for carrying a shotgun in a school zone. Finally, we talk about a new letter campaign from a coalition of gun rights groups seeking a commitment from major banks that they will no longer discriminate against the firearms industry.

This week, we have another episode on our nation's recent struggles with horrendous violence. However, this time we're looking at potential solutions to that struggle.

That's why we have Let's Talk to Them director Jordan Estrada back on the show. His organization attempts to adapt lessons from research into the causes of mass shootings, such as work from The Violence Project, and apply them to real-world efforts. It tries to funnel those who are experiencing a potentially violent mental health spiral toward resources that can off ramp them from the path of violence.

Estrada said his group believes they can apply similar techniques to disuade potential assassins from carrying out attacks, too. He said the two violent phenomena share a number of similarities. But he also noted there are some differences as well.

That's why he and Let's Talk to Them are currently working on securing funding for a scientific study to better understand how prevalent mass shooting and assassination ideation really are among Americans. Then, they also want to better understand the sorts of arguments that might convince people considering those forms of violence not to go through with it.

Using the lessons learned from that research, Estrada said his group plans to further update the programs it's already using to successfully off-ramp potential shooters across the country.

Special Guest: Jordan Estrada.

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I provide an update in our attempt to gain clarity from the DC Metropolitan Police Department regarding the nature of its enforcement of the city's strict gun control laws during Trump's federal takeover. We also discuss the California legislature's passage of a first-in-the-nation ban on the sale of Glock handguns in a bid to crack down on illegal machine guns.

This week, we're discussing the murder of political commentator Charlie Kirk. To do that, we have Cam Edwards from Bearing Arms on the show.

While the full details and precise motivations of the killer are not completely known, the political nature of the attack--coming in the middle of one of Kirk's public debate events--is especially concerning. Cam agreed that the vast majority of people have reacted by condemning the attack. However, he was worried about the people who reacted by condoning or even celebrating the brazen act of violence.

Cam recounted how a similar phenomenon played out in his own life after he lost his wife and son. He said some people reacted with vitriol because of his firearms advocacy. However, some of those who vehemently opposed Cam's views also reached out with genuine care.

In the end, Cam said it would be easy to go down a hateful path--perhaps even lucrative. But he also said it would be corrosive for himself and for society. So, he chose not to respond with hate, and he believes that's the best way forward for everyone. Don't let the violence cow you into staying silent or into hating those opposed to you.

Special Guest: Cam Edwards.

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I unpack the latest information about the assassination of conservative political activist Charlie Kirk, including details suggesting troubling parallels with other recent acts of political violence. We also cover a pair of federal appeals court rulings upholding gun-free zone restrictions in Illinois and New Jersey.

This week, we're looking at the dueling reactions to the Annunciation school shooting.

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.