The Weekly Reload Podcast

This week, we saw two federal appellate courts weigh in on the Second Amendment rights of people in the country unlawfully. The opinions covered a variety of positions on the question.

Of course, they aren't the first courts to address the issue, and it's only become a more common challenge in the wake of 2022's New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. So, to dissect the state of the legal debate, we have Seattle University of Law professor Alan Mygatt-Tauber on the show. He has a law review article set to publish early next year that examines the state of the fight over undocumented immigrants and guns, as well as weighing in on the different arguments.

Mygatt-Tauber said he's read every Second Amendment challenge to the illegal immigrant gun ban since Bruen was handed down. He said the most common outcome was a court holding that undocumented immigrants are part of "the people" protected by the Second Amendment, but upholding the gun ban as consistent with America's tradition of gun regulation. Then there were courts that determined they aren't protected by the Second Amendment at all. Finally, the least common holding was that they are protected, and the law is unconstitutional.

He noted that the Sixth and Tenth Circuit holdings were both in the first category, but one included a notable, lengthy dissent explaining why all non-citizens don't enjoy Second, First, or Fourth Amendment rights. He noted that, even though he belives its the most accurate position, no court has yet held illegal immigrants are entitled to Second Amendment rights and the law barring them from possessing guns is unconstitutional.

Special Guest: Alan Mygatt-Tauber.

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I assess the political reaction to a pair of terrible mass shootings in Australia and Rhode Island. We also cover two separate federal appeals court rulings that came down this week, each upholding the federal gun ban for illegal immigrants.

This week, we're covering a topic that may give you a bit of deja vu. Or, even, deja deja vu.

That's because we've seen this all before. Twice.

On Wednesday, a Fifth Circuit panel reissued its opinion in US v. Peterson for the second time. That makes it the third revision. To discuss the difference between the three, we have federal litigator and legal commentator Gabriel Malor back on the show.

He noted that in every version, the panel upheld Peterson's conviction for possessing an unregistered silencer. However, he said each version became less expansive than the last. In the latest version, Malor pointed out that the subtle changes the panel made all went toward emphasizing that Peterson's Second Amendment challenge was only as-applied to him and that the panel thought he did a particularly bad job.

Malor argued the panel was sending signals with its edits. He said the judges had moved pretty far from their original holding that silencers are not arms protected by the Second Amendment. And, even though they still ruled Peterson's challenge failed, they laid out a potential path for how other challengers might succeed.

Special Guest: Gabriel Malor.

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I cover a new legal brief from the nation's largest gun-control groups filed in support of the Trump administration's position regarding the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act. We also discuss the DOJ's new Second Amendment division officially going live with an interesting take on who gun rights apply to.

This week, we're taking a deep dive into the new Second Amendment history course that the Department of Education just granted funding.

To give us insight into what the University of Wyoming's Firearms Research Center, which received the grant, hopes to accomplish, we have Ashley Hlebinsky back on the show. She is the Executive Director of the center, wrote the grant request, and will be one of the main people overseeing development of the educational resources.

She said the goal of the project is not to impart a partisan view of the Second Amendment or guns onto students, but, rather, to give educators access to primary sources and scholars from varying viewpoints. She said the grant process was anything but political, and insisted the course materials would be as well.

Hlebinsky said the plan is to develop a digital archive of historical documents related to the creation and ratification of the Second Amendment, as well as the state and federal gun laws that have come since that time. She said the center would develop video lessons that could be used for teacher education or classroom instruction. The teachers will also have access to webinars featuring Second Amendment scholars and the opportunity to attend an in-person conference.

The course material will be available to secondary school teachers nationwide. However, it won't be a mandatory course. Instead, it's an opt-in teaching resource intended to help improve civics education during the nation's 250th anniversary.

Special Guest: Ashley Hlebinsky.

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I detail the latest monthly gun sales data, which showed Black Friday failed to juice gun sales as it has in recent years. We also cover the reaction from gun-rights groups to the Department of Justice's new dedicated Second Amendment office in its Civil Rights Division. Plus, I chat with a Reload subscriber in a new member segment.

This week, we're fielding questions from Reload Members!

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.

This week, we got a surprise nomination for the top role at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF).

On Tuesday, President Donald Trump quietly submitted Robert Cekada's nomination to the Senate. Cekada is currently ATF's Deputy Director and has worked at the agency for the last 20 years. To dissect what the pick means for gun politics and policy, we've got Bearing Arms' Cam Edwards back on the show.

Cam said Cekada's background in law enforcement is likely to make him relatively uncontroversial in the Senate, which boosts his odds of being confirmed. He said Cekada could even gain at least some bipartisan support. But he also noted the same quality could irk some gun-rights activists.

Cam agreed that Cekada was a much less aggressive pick than the two that former President Joe Biden made. He said picking a career ATF official to head up the ATF is unlikely to please those who want to see the agency change dramatically or even go away altogether. Still, he noted the gun industry is very supportive of Cekada's nomination and that could help sway other gun-rights advocates.

Ultimately, he said the pick is likely to keep the ATF on its current trajectory. How people feel about the ATF's 2025 track record is probably a good barometer of how they'll feel about Cekada.

Special Guest: Cam Edwards.

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss this week's announcement by President Trump of his nomination of career law enforcement officer Robert Cekada to direct the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. We cover what we know about Cekada's background, how the gun industry is reacting to his nomination, and what to watch for as his nomination moves forward.

This week, we're taking a close look at what's going on with the National Rifle Association (NRA).

The NRA was swamped by its rivals in the gun debate during the 2025 elections just as it was announcing a major restructuring effort that featured dozens of staff furloughs. To provide insight into the group's plans, we've brought on NRA board member Amanda Suffecool. She is a member of the internal reform movement and now sits on the board's Finance Committee.

Suffecool said she is confident that reformers are in full control of the NRA and have a specific plan for its future. She argued the restructuring is necessary to put the NRA on a realistic path to resurgence. Suffecool noted the NRA has spent years running deficits under the old leadership, and the cuts to staff and operations under the new plan will bring the group's budget back into the black. She said that would enable them to better compete down the line rather than face potential bankruptcy.

She argued that the reforms she and other members of the new NRA leadership have implemented will bring the group up to modern standards. Suffecool said that while the NRA is reducing the frequency of its paper magazines, it's also expanding its digital offerings. She said it is shifting its fundraising and public relations approach to match what works in 2025, rather than sticking with older methods.

Special Guest: Amanda Suffecool.