The Weekly Reload Podcast

Charles Cooke is back on the show this week.

The National Review senior writer is an expert on gun policy and politics. He is also a Florida Man. So, he's the perfect person to come on and talk about Governor Ron Desantis's (R.) latest push to institute new gun reforms.

Cooke said Desantis's push to implement permitless gun carry and banking reforms designed to pressure financial institutions into continuing to work with gun businesses is likely to succeed. Republicans have supermajorities in both houses of the state legislature and Desantis has worked more closely with lawmakers than previous governors. So, Cooke said the bills are almost certainly going to become law by the end of the session.

He argued both reforms are good policies. But, beyond the merits of the proposals, he also said the move will help Desantis in the upcoming Republican presidential primary. He said Desantis needs those pro-gun accomplishments to fend off attacks from his right on the issue. He pointed to Georgia Governor Brian Kemp and Texas Governor Greg Abbott as contenders who could credibly go after him if he doesn't get these bills through.

Of course, Cooke also stacked up the potential legislative accomplishments for Desantis against former president Donald Trump's record on guns. Permitless carry and pro-gun banking reforms would give Desantis a stronger legislative record than Trump. And Trump's infamous comments expressing a desire to take troubled people's guns and have due process afterward only helps Desantis. But Trump also appointed three Supreme Court justices who were in the Bruen majority, which is clearly a major trump card.

Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about the California city trying to charge people $1,000 for a gun-carry permit. And Reload Member Liz Mair tells us about how guns have played a role in her life and why she comes to The Reload for gun news.

Special Guest: Charles Cooke.

This week, we're examining the way that most gun-control groups count "gun violence."

Kostas Moros, a gun-rights lawyer, joins the show to discuss the piece he wrote for The Reload about why the decision to include gun-related suicides in those counts is misleading. He explained that the majority of gun deaths, and usually up to two-thirds of them, are suicides. He said gun-control activists' claims about the correlation between strict gun laws and lower levels of "gun violence" don't hold water without including suicides.

Moros argued states with strict gun laws often don't have lower gun murder rates or overall murder rates than their pro-gun neighbors. He cited his home state of California as a prime example of this phenomenon. Its murder rate is higher than its less restrictive neighbors to the north and only marginally better than Arizona, which has some of the least restrictive gun laws in the country.

Additionally, Moros says treating gun suicides as a type of criminal violence is illogical. He argued no other forms of suicide are referred to as a kind of violence or included in violence counts for knives, rope, or anything else. 

He noted that guns are among the most deadly suicide techniques, and gun owners should do everything possible to mitigate the problem. He also noted that the absence or presence of guns at a societal level doesn't correlate to a country's suicide rate. The United States has by far the most civilian-owned firearms in the world, but our suicide rate is comparable to most other developed nations and much lower than countries like South Korea.

Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I look at the unethical way Brady United used an Aurora theater victim's family in a stunt lawsuit that left them bankrupt.

Special Guest: Kostas Moros.

We're doing another unique episode this week.

Instead of exploring a specific story from the week, we're taking a step back and looking at the state of the legal fight over guns. That's why I reached out to one of the best legal commentators out there: Mark W. Smith. He is an author, lawyer, and host of The Four Boxes Diner on YouTube.

Smith gives us the state of play around gun restrictions in federal courts. He said there has been more significant movement from the courts in the seven months since SCOTUS handed down a decision in Bruen than there had been in the decade-plus between it and the landmark Heller decision. And he thinks things are just getting started.

He believes the Supreme Court will likely take up multiple Second Amendment cases over its next term. Smith said they are likely to settle some questions around prohibited person restrictions. But he noted the Court usually takes up cases as a means to lay out best practices for deciding future cases as well. So, the justices are likely to look for cases where they can hand down a decision that applies well beyond the merits of the case.

Smith also goes over some emerging arguments for how certain modern gun restrictions, such as magazine bans, can survive Bruen scrutiny and explains why he believes they don't hold water.

Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss Florida Governor Ron Desantis's effort to keep big banks from dropping gun companies.

Special Guest: Mark W. Smith.

This week we're focused on YouTube's erratic moderation of silencers.

The social media giant began deleting videos and even whole channels that featured silencers, often called suppressors, from their site a few weeks back. Then, after public outcry and an inquiry from The Reload, the company reversed course. But the damage to trust many gun creators had in the platform was already done by then.

Ian McCollum, who had one of his suppressor videos from Forgotten Weapons deleted, joins the podcast to talk about the ordeal. He explains how this is not the first time YouTube has targeted gun channels with unclear policies. In fact, he said he's been dealing with these problems nearly the entire time he's been on the platform.

That's why he's attempted to diversify where his content is hosted over the years. He's also taken to using alternative means for growing a sustainable income outside of YouTube in order to mitigate against the video company's impact on his ability to make the content he and his audience love. At the same time, he said he remains on YouTube because it's by far the largest platform out there and it's important to go where the audience is.

He also shares some insight into what he has planned for the future of Forgotten Weapons. Both the long-term vision for the company and some hints at upcoming videos.

Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about how the NRA managed to lose over a million members in just 4 years.

Special Guest: Ian McCollum.

This week we're trying something a little bit different.

Usually, we have a guest on to talk about a recent gun story we've been reporting on. I thought it would be a good time to shake things up a little bit. When New York Times best-selling fantasy author Larry Correia's agent reached out about his new non-fiction book on the Second Amendment, it seemed like a good idea.

Correia was amenable. So, I read his classic book Monster Hunter International and his new book In Defense of the Second Amendment to prepare for the conversation. I think they're both very good.

Correia's background as a gun dealer, firearms safety instructor, and competitive shooter really comes through in both works. His breadth of knowledge about guns and real-world experience shooting them elevates the fights in Monster Hunter International with a grounding sense of realism. His up-to-date awareness of gun policy and politics puts In Defense of the Second Amendment head and shoulders above most political gun books, especially those written by someone who doesn't work full-time in the political world.

We spend some time discussing his background and how it informs his prolific non-fiction writing. But most of our conversation focused on his new non-fiction work. In Defense of the Second Amendment, as you might imagine from the name, is a book gun owners looking to learn more about the political debate will enjoy most. But it's also one that provides a solid and readable guide to many of the best pro-gun arguments and responses to gun-control arguments.

Those who disagree with Correia's outlook on guns may not like how he talks about gun-control activists or their ideas, but they can still get a good idea of how gun-rights activists think. The book provides a good picture of how most pro-gun people think about the fight over guns in America.

Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss a Fifth Circuit panel's decision to strike down the domestic violence restraining order gun ban.

Special Guest: Larry Correia.

This week we have one of my favorite guests back on the show: Cam Edwards of Bearing Arms.

There are few people who follow gun politics as closely as Cam. And even fewer are capable of the intelligent analysis he commonly offers. So, I'm glad he's back to talk about the complicated ins and outs of the ATF's recent rule proposals and public statements.

The ATF clarified several points regarding its upcoming pistol brace ban this week. It said foreign-made braced guns can be either dismantled or registered as short-barrel rifles to comply with the new ban instead of being destroyed or turned in. They also announced plans to officially publish the rule on January 31st, giving Americans until May to comply before it becomes a crime not to do so.

Cam said much of the 293-page rule is still confusing, even for somebody who follows gun news for a living. Are there any braced guns that the ATF won't consider SBRs? Do braces have to be destroyed after being removed to comply with the dismantling requirements? Can the ATF's current determinations even be trusted, given how often they reverse themselves?

Speaking of the ATF reversing itself, Cam also gives an update on a recent Q&A posted on the agency's website claimed NFA items, such as suppressors or machineguns, could no longer be possessed by anyone other than the owner. That supposedly included times when the owner was there in person and allowing somebody else to try out or rent their gun. Cam said the ATF admitted this isn't true and, apparently, some kind of mistake.

He said all these inconsistencies hurt the agency's credibility and make it very difficult for gun owners to navigate thorny legal questions that could produce serious consequences.

Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss a new Secret Service report detailing strategies to prevent mass killings.

Special Guest: Cam Edwards.

This week, we're diving into the details of the ATF's pistol brace ban.

That's why we have pistol brace inventor and SB Tactical owner Alex Bosco on the show. He gave his view on how many guns will be affected by the ban, whether any braced guns avoid the prohibition, and the legal case he's building against it.

Bosco said he believes there are at least 10 million braces in circulation despite the ATF's claim the number is closer to 3 million. He said the new rule appears to effectively reclassify all braced guns with rifled barrels shorter than 16 inches long as short-barrel rifles that require registration under the National Firearms Act. That means millions of Americans will have to either dismantle, turn in, or register their braced guns to avoid potential federal felony charges.

But he said the problem goes deeper than that because some braced guns won't be eligible for registration or dismantling. Bosco noted the ATF said many imported braced guns sold as pistols could not legally be converted to rifles under federal law. That means they must be destroyed or turned in to the ATF.

Bosco argued this was one of several legal weaknesses in the ban that he plans to sue over with the backing of the National Rifle Association, which has committed to helping fund a challenge. The Fifth Circuit's recent ruling against the Trump-era bumpstock ban provides a good template for how to beat the ATF's latest regulation, and nearly every major gun-rights group is filing suit against the pistol brace ban. Bosco said he is hopeful they will prevail.

Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about local law enforcement resisting the Illinois "assault weapons" ban, as well as my trip to SHOT Show in Las Vegas, which featured a speech from ATF Director Steve Dettelbach.

Special Guest: Alex Bosco.

The podcast is back after a holiday and illness break. This week, we're covering the pair of gun insurance mandates that have recently gone into effect.

R.J. Lehmann, a senior fellow at the International Center for Law and Economics, joins us to discuss the details of New Jersey's gun-carry insurance mandate and San Jose, California's gun ownership insurance requirement.

He said the requirements, which are the first of their kind, won't accomplish the goal lawmakers have claimed. Namely, insurance companies can't provide coverage for criminal acts. That basically leaves damage caused by accidental shootings as the only real option for coverage.

And even accidental coverage is more limited than most people realize. For instance, homeowners' insurance--which San Jose now claims qualifies under its mandate--will cover accidental shootings, but only for damages done to third parties. That means any harm caused to the homeowner or family members living in the home wouldn't be covered.

Lehmann said New Jersey's requirement is even more problematic because it appears to be trying to require insurance against deliberate, and potentially criminal, acts. He said that's not something any company offers nor is it a policy lawmakers could realistically force companies to offer. It also goes directly against the state's complaints about "concealed carry insurance," which are often not actual insurance policies but lawyer co-ops or group retainer plans.

Beyond the practical problems with the mandates, Lehmann said they also face an uphill battle in the courts. He explains why founding-era surity laws are a bad analogue for these modern requirements and why they are unlikely to survive the Bruen test in the long run.

Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I examine the new Illinois "assault weapons" ban. And Reload Member David Rice tells us about he went from buying his first gun in 2020 to getting involved in gun-rights activism.

Special Guest: RJ Lehmann.

Last week, we broke news of the CDC removing gun defense use estimates and a review paper it commissioned from its website after meeting privately with a group of advocates.

This week, we have one of those advocates on the show. Mark Bryant, executive director of the Gun Violence Archive, was involved in the private meeting with CDC officials. He attacked Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck's estimate of 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year as misleading. And he said it was preventing new gun restrictions from making progress.

The CDC initially rebuffed the request from Bryant, GVPedia's Devin Hughes, and Newtown Action Alliance's Po Murray. However, they eventually changed course and deleted the defensive use estimates from their website without getting input from other points of view or making a public announcement of the edit.

Mark joins the show to explain and defend his role in the conversation, which he says he was added to late in the process. He argued his only concern in the conversation was with the accuracy of the data.

Things got a bit heated when I challenged him on a number of points and vice versa. However, it stayed civil overall, and I think the conversation was fruitful and exciting. Beyond the politics of the situation, we also discussed the controversy over how best to measure defensive gun uses as well as things like mass shootings.

Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I give updates on New Jersey's gun-carry restrictions and California's fee-shifting law.

Special Guest: Mark Bryant.

The CDC came under fire this week after we broke news they had deleted defensive gun use (DGU) stats from their website under pressure from gun-control advocates. It's an extremely important story, but one that involves some complicated science.

So, I wanted to bring on somebody who has extensive knowledge of the topic to help us get a better understanding of the controversy. That's why I asked Manhatten Institute fellow Robert VerBruggen to join me. He has written about the strengths and weaknesses of different methods for estimating DGUs, including the Gary Kleck surveys at the center of the fight.

He said the real problem with the CDC ordeal is that it raises ethical questions which cast a shadow over the agency's reputation. He said officials should not have consulted with gun-control advocates in secret and to the exclusion of other outside perspectives. VerBruggen noted there was no new information shared during the conversations with the advocates, and the initial language the CDC scrubbed from their website was not inaccurate.

VerBruggen said there are legitimate critiques of using surveys to calculate DGUs. The media-report-based estimate that gun-control advocates prefer is even more problematic, according to VerBruggen. He explained the ins and outs of the different approaches and why they produce such divergent results.

Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss the political fallout from the CDC's actions.

Special Guest: Robert VerBruggen.