The Weekly Reload Podcast

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I break down last week's oral arguments in Wolford v. Lopez, which saw a majority of the Supreme Court justices express skepticism toward the legality of Hawaii's "Vampire Rule" gun carry law. We also talk about the ATF's new proposal to redefine who counts as an "unlawful drug user" for the purposes of federal gun law.

This week, we're looking at one of the most bizarre and fascinating results of the recent tax cut to the National Firearms Act (NFA): a fully registered potato silencer. To help explain the phenomenon, we have the man who made the device with us on the show. Zachary Clark appears to be the first person to get official Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) approval for a silencer made primarily of a russet potato. He said he did it for the lols, but not just them. Clark, who is a social media manager at the National Association for Gun Rights, argued there is a very real risk to using a potato as a silencer without going through the full registration process. He noted that the ATF has repeatedly argued anything attached to the muzzle of a firearm that reduces the report of a gunshot could be considered a silencer under the NFA. He said without going through the fingerprinting and registration process, it's possible anyone who attempts to use a potato as a silencer could be charged with a federal felony carrying a decade in prison and hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines. So, Clark said he registered a pair of potatoes as a form of political protest. Or, perhaps, political performance art is a more apt description. Either way, he said he's not expecting backlash from the ATF, even with all the attention he's receiving, but he thinks the agency changing its mind may just make the situation all the more humorous.Special Guest: Zachary Clark.

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I cover a new Department of Justice legal opinion claiming that the US Postal Service's ban on mailing handguns is unconstitutional. We also cover a new campaign from a rare pro-gun Democrat that could shake up the battle for the US Senate in November.

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I detail some of the biggest potential stories in guns that we are watching for in the new year. We also cover a new ruling out of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that found California's practice of limiting open carry unconstitutional. We also discuss the NRA's new lawsuit against its own foundation, which accuses the charity of misusing NRA trademarks and misleading NRA donors in an attempt to retaliate against reform-minded board members who recently took control of the membership organization.

This week, we're taking a look at the state of knife laws across the United States. 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.

This week, we're discussing the seemingly contradictory gun litigation moves the Department of Justice (DOJ) just made. On the one hand, the DOJ filed a first-of-its-kind lawsuit challenging Washington, DC's "assault weapons" ban. On the other, it defended the federal switchblade carry ban. To make sense of the two moves, we have Bearing Arms' Cam Edwards back on the show. Cam said he is impressed by the DC suit. He argued that the DOJ might have a better chance of getting the law struck down than previous challenges did. He also said it could even be a candidate for Supreme Court review, though he noted there are several other cases that are much further along in the process. However, Cam said he's disappointed by DOJ's defense of the federal switchblade restrictions. He argued the Trump Administration has been inconsistent on Second Amendment questions, and the latest moves show a continued dichotomy between how it treats state and federal laws. He said he'd like to see all approval on gun-related legal questions run through the DOJ's Civil Rights Division's Second Amendment Section. We also discussed the reason Cam agreed to be a last-minute guest this week: Grabagun cancelled their CEO's planned appearance on the show. The company attempted to restrict talk about their involvement with Donald Trump Jr. before ultimately deciding not to do the interview.Special Guest: Cam Edwards.

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.