The Weekly Reload Podcast

We're bringing back a fan-favorite guest this week: Cam Edwards of Bearing Arms.

He joins the show to discuss Tennessee's new "red flag" proposal. We talked about the major differences between Governor Bill Lee's (R.) proposal and other laws already on the books. The Tennessee proposal is one of the first to try and address many of the due process concerns raised by the other laws.

But Cam argued the changes aren't enough to satisfy gun-rights advocates. He said the problem stems from the basic approach of trying to reform red flag laws, which center on temporarily confiscating firearms from those who are a danger to themselves or others, in the first place. He said that flips priorities on their head because somebody who is a threat to themselves or others needs serious mental health intervention instead of just having their guns taken away. Cam argued involuntary commitment is a better solution, and lawmakers should start from that point if they want to address the issue.

We also looked at former President Donald Trump's recent comments backing his bump stock ban. Cam said Trump's doubling down on the ban leaves him vulnerable to his right on gun policy. He said it makes sense for opponents to try and exploit that opening, as Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R.) seems to be positioning himself to do. But he also noted Trump has seen pretty resilient support from gun voters to this point and may be able to keep that advantage despite his continued support for the bump stock ban.

Reload Member Frank Phillips also joined the show this week in a member segment where we discussed his hobby of collecting guns and suppressors.

Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss federal court rulings upholding the gun ban for those involuntarily committed and striking down the sales ban for adults under 21.

Special Guest: Cam Edwards.

The Supreme Court is back in the spotlight because it showed a sign it might soon act on so-called assault weapons bans.

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.

Another federal judge ruled on Friday that so-called assault weapons bans likely violate the Second Amendment.

So, the Illinois ban is blocked for now. But Washington's was just signed. And Delaware's 2022 ban is still standing. Elsewhere, bans on the popular guns, including the AR-15, have been forestalled by political reality.

Independence Institute's David Kopel understands the fight well having just gone through it in his home state of Colorado, where Democrats who control the government weren't able to push a ban over the finish line. But he has also filed many court briefs and written even more books or academic papers on the topic from a pro-gun point of view. He joins the show to discuss the political and legal landscape in the fight over assault weapons bans.

What stopped Colorado's ban from going forward? Why has there been a sudden resurgence in blue states pushing for the bans? What is the legal argument against them? What is the state of the numerous lawsuits against AR-15 bans across the country?

And, most importantly, will the Supreme Court take up an assault weapons ban case soon? If so, what are they likely to decide?

Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss the wide-reaching implications of the bump stock ban being stuck down by another federal appeals court.

Special Guest: David Kopel.

The NRA's 2023 Annual Meeting was last week. The group was resurgent, and leadership got a mostly warm welcome.

That doesn't mean the NRA's problems are solved. To the contrary, it still seems to be bleeding membership revenue at the same time it racks up increasing legal bills from dealing with multiple corruption suits over allegations of financial impropriety. That's why we have Frank Tait, who just finished his term on the NRA board, on the show this week.

Tait, who joined the board as a vocal critic of Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, admitted attempts to reform the group from within have failed. He responded to several of the most common defenses of LaPierre, often employed by other members of the board, and explained why he believes the organization is in dire trouble.

He also talked about his time on the board. He said NRA staff made it very difficult for board members to access key documents. He also described how the 76-member board functions in practice, saying a small fraction of the board holds the majority of the decision-making power.

Tait also said he doesn't plan to run for re-election in large part because he no longer sees a viable path to changing leadership from the inside.

Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss what Colorado's failure to pass an "assault weapons" ban means for the policy's recent momentum.

Special Guest: Frank Tait.

The beginning of the week featured another horrible mass shooting in America. This time at a bank in Louisville, Kentucky.

That's why I wanted to bring on one of the leading experts currently studying mass shootings. Metro State University Professor James Densley is one of the co-founders of The Violence Project, which has the most detailed and comprehensive database of mass shootings dating back to 1966. He is also the co-author of the book by the same name that outlines potential real-world solutions to the phenomenon.

Professor Densley explained why he believes the count they use, which only includes public attacks where four or more people are killed for reasons unrelated to other criminal conduct, gives the most accurate understanding of mass shootings. He said it's important to properly define terms when you're attempting to seriously study a problem and identify trends so you can craft solutions.

He laid out some of the common patterns seen in the lives of mass shooters before they carry out their attacks. For instance, he said most shooters have a long history of abuse and trauma before they decide to do the unthinkable. And the shootings almost always follow an inciting incident that sends the shooter into a crisis state.

Densley argued that a potential attacker could be "off-ramped" at any point along that path, whether it's after they first experience abuse or after they begin experiencing an inciting crisis. What's necessary is for those who recognize the warning signs to step in and do something to help. And that resources to help are made available and known to those looking to carry out that kind of intervention.

But those aren't the only interventions Densley believes are necessary. He said firearms restrictions of some kind should be part of the equation as well, especially for those showing warning signs they may be a threat to themselves or others. We go back and forth on why gun-rights advocates and gun owners are not as open to those ideas as Densley would like them to be.

Ultimately, Densley said he believes mass shootings are not an inevitability and can be prevented through action on the individual and societal level--even if not everyone agrees on every aspect of the solutions he proposes.

Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss a new win in court for marijuana users who want to own guns.

Special Guest: James Densley.

It's time for another Q&A podcast episode!

This week, we're taking some of the best questions from Reload Members. Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman joins me to offer up our best answers to those questions.

And those questions covered all sorts of topics. One member asked how realistic confiscation of at least some firearms, such as AR-15s, is and what protections against the federal government implementing such a policy exists. Another asked about the long-term prospects for the gun-rights movement, especially in blue states.

We also explain how circuit splits work and discuss the weakness of the "common use" standard at the center of Heller and Bruen. I also give my point of view on some of the language often employed in media coverage of the AR-15.

This week, we're discussing the tremendous effect the Supreme Court's Bruen decision has had on the lower courts in a few short months.

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.

This week, California gun owners received positive news when a federal judge ruled the state's handgun restrictions are unconstitutional.

So, we decided to reach out to one of the most prominent plaintiffs in the case: YouTuber Reno May. He said he is happy with the outcome of the case. He even expressed optimism that the ruling might go into effect without an appeal.

Federal District Judge Judge Cormac J. Carney agreed with May and the other plaintiffs' argument that the state's "Unsafe Handgun Law" violates the Second Amendment. He found the requirement that all new models of handguns include loaded chamber indicators, magazine disconnect safeties, and microstamping were unlike anything in the historical record. Judge Carney said that the law can't stand under the Bruen standard.

While the problem with California banning handguns that don't feature a theoretical technology, like Microstamping, May explained why the other two requirements were actually more challenging for gun makers to meet than they first seem. For instance, many modern guns have some kind of loaded chamber indicator, but California requires one that has a specific phrase written on it to qualify.

May said the law has prevented him from buying any modern handgun from a dealer since he started buying them after 2013. He noted he and other Californians may still have to wait to buy new handguns, though, because the ruling doesn't go into effect for several more days. And he noted California is likely to appeal the verdict while asking for a stay that would delay the effect of this ruling.

But he noted the odd silence from the state and gun-control supporters about the case. That gives him hope that an appeal may not be coming. May also gave us some insight into the modern pistols he plans to buy if no appeal comes.

Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about why a federal judge added Polymer80 to the list of companies the ATF can't go after under President Biden's "ghost gun" ban.

Special Guest: Reno May.

President Joe Biden announced a set of new executive orders this week that could have wide-ranging effects.

But what does his order actually do? Well, that's what we brought Amy Swearer on to explain. She's the conservative Heritage Foundation's gun policy expert who regularly testifies on Capitol Hill.

She said three of the initiatives have the potential to have a severe impact on gun owners across America. The effort to broaden the requirement for those selling guns to obtain a federal license, the directive that federal agencies and the military try to add gun-control requirements to their gun acquisition contracts, and the request for the Federal Trade Commission to investigate gun company advertising could have the most significant effect. Swearer said those policies could make it much more difficult for private individuals and companies to sell guns.

However, we don't yet know precisely how the administration will put President Biden's order into practice. And there are real hurdles to implementing them in the most aggressive possible approach.

When it comes to changing the standard for who qualifies as being "engaged in the business" of dealing guns, the President will have to work within the legal definition set by Congress. The Department of Defense is unlikely to compromise the effectiveness of its weapons to push a backdoor gun-control regime. And the FTC doesn't have to listen to Biden's request at all. 

Still, Swearer argued he might push the boundaries of what's possible on all three.

But this order is undoubtedly less substantial than President Biden's previous executive actions on guns. His 'ghost gun" and pistol-brace bans affect millions of Americans, potentially subjecting them to federal felon charges if they don't give up or register their affected firearms and parts.

Of course, those orders are also under intense legal scrutiny. The "ghost gun" rule has already been mostly blocked, and it's very likely the pistol-brace ban will soon face the same fate. But Swearer said gun owners should remain concerned about where this new order could end up.

Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss North Carolina's gun advocates' latest effort to repeal the state's pistol-purchase-permit law.

Special Guest: Amy Swearer.

On this week's episode, we're exploring a new effort to make firearms law and history a specific academic pursuit.

Ashley Hlebinsky joins the show to tell us about the University of Wyoming's Firearms Research Center. She is the former curator of the Cody Firearms Museum who helped found the new center. She explains what she and a top law professor at the school hope to accomplish with the effort.

Hlebinsky said the goal is to develop gun research as a unified topic of study. She said the center is hoping to bring scholars from around higher education to work together at events and on different projects. That includes working with other institutions, including Duke University's Center for Firearms Law.

However, she said the UW center also plans to work with people, like herself, who don't have advanced degrees but have tremendous experience working with historic firearms. Hlebinsky argued museum curators, researchers, and show hosts have often amassed as much or more knowledge, often from working directly with primary sources, than those with graduate degrees. She wants to identify the best way to harness that knowledge while avoiding the common pitfalls of amateur historical work.

She also addressed critics who have questioned the center accepting funding from some gun company executives. Hlebinsky said the funding wouldn't dictate what conclusions the center's work comes to. She said she had fought to keep the center's work independent, even threatening to resign when some lawmakers sought to control what the center could do.

Hlebinsky also shared some of her favorite guns from her time as the curator at Cody Firearms Museum. She pointed to several guns that developed features years or even decades before they received mainstream adoption. And she talked about how video games and movies impacted attendance at the museum in interesting and unexpected ways.

Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about why the major credit card companies have backed away from a plan to add a merchant code for gun stores.

Special Guest: Ashley Hlebinsky.