The Weekly Reload Podcast

This week, we broke a major story about Kamala Harris's record backing a total handgun ban in San Francisco. As District Attorney in 2005, Harris supported Proposition H. It banned the sale, purchase, and even possession of pistols by nearly every city resident. The measure never went into effect, but only because gun-rights activists won the court fight over it before that could happen. Chuck Michel, President of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, was the lawyer who won that case. He joined the podcast to discuss both the fight over Proposition H and the numerous other fights over gun restrictions he had with Harris during her time in California. He argued her support for several strictest-in-the-nation gun measures is more reflective of how she would govern as president than her recent remarks on owning a handgun herself. Free Dispatch trial here: https://thedispatch.com/join-offer-reload/?utm_source=thereload&utm_medium=partnerships-podcast&utm_campaign=0924Special Guest: Chuck Michel.

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about Kamala Harris' past support for a San Francisco ballot measure that banned the sale and possession of handguns during her time as the city's District Attorney and what bearing that might have in the current election. We also talk about new FEC records showing the NRA trailing the national gun rights groups in political fundraising by millions of dollars in August. Finally, we wrap up by talking about the record drop in murder in 2023 and the rise of gun ownership among self-identified liberals. Free Dispatch trial here: https://thedispatch.com/join-offer-reload/?utm_source=thereload&utm_medium=partnerships-podcast&utm_campaign=0924

This week, we're turning our attention to the presidential race. Donald Trump and Kamala Harris seem to have found their message on guns and are sticking to it. Assassination attempts, a major school shooting, and the race tightening haven't moved voters. Neither has any of that moved the candidates themselves. So, we've got Bearing Arms editor Cam Edwards back on the show to look at where everything has landed. He agreed there's little reason to think the campaigns are going to change course on message or intensity at this point. But he argued both sides are taking a flawed approach. Cam said Trump ought to do more to try and entice gun owners to turn out for him rather than just talking about how he doesn't think they will show up. On the other hand, he argued Harris trying to parry claims she'll take Americans' guns by emphasizing her own gun ownership felt inauthentic and didn't do enough to counteract some of the farther left positions she's staked out on guns in the past.Special Guest: Cam Edwards.

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about new polling data showing voters trust Kamala Harris more on the issue of "gun violence" despite ranking the issue low on their list of priorities this election. We also talk about the political implications of young women moving way to the left on the issue of guns. Finally, we wrap up with a discussion of a new federal bill to force the US Military to initiate state red flag orders, the lack of gun policy ballot measures this November, and a new state-level legislative coalition launched by the national gun control groups. Free Dispatch trial here: https://thedispatch.com/join-offer-reload/?utm_source=thereload&utm_medium=partnerships-podcast&utm_campaign=0924

This week, we're reacting to the debate. That's why I've got one of the top political reporters in the country on the show. Dave Weigel is a writer for Semafor, who runs their Americana newsletter. He has been covering national politics across major outlets for decades now. He is one of the best-sourced reporters out there. He said Kamala Harris bringing up her gun ownership at the debate was a bit of a surprise since she hasn't talked much about that before. He agreed the fact she owns a handgun for self-defense could make her more relatable to the average gun owner than Tim Walz, who centers his gun ownership around hunting. But he doubted that would become a major part of her campaign going forward. Weigel said guns have been a relatively minor issue in the election thus far. He said that was likely due to two factors. One is the relative lack of high-profile shootings. The other is the limits on what gun control is even possible under the Supreme Court's Bruen precedent.Special Guest: Dave Weigel.

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss my time in Texas covering the NRA's latest board meeting, where the group came to an agreement on a reform plan but failed to overhaul its legal strategy after a marathon executive session. We also discuss new corruption allegations against the group in a recently filed lawsuit from a former employee, as well as the group's first big election ad buy of the cycle. Finally, we recap the limited role guns played in the Presidential debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump and new evidence of a modest bump in support for stricter gun laws in the aftermath of the Georgia shooting.

This week, we've got one of the nation's premier political analysts on the show. Steve Hayes, co-founder of The Dispatch, joined us to discuss the state of the 2024 gun debate. He gave his take on the path Kamala Harris and Donald Trump have taken in their respective campaigns. Then he turned to how the recent mass shooting at a Georgia High School might shake up those positions. Hayes noted guns have not been a top priority for voters thus far in the election. He said that was likely because there haven't been a lot of high-profile shootings this year. He argued that could change because of the new attention the Georgia shooting will bring to the issue, but he wasn't sure if it would reach the level of intense media coverage that's necessary to push either candidate one way or the other.Special Guest: Steve Hayes.

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I cover the early political and legal fallout from the Georgia High School shooting, including what it could mean for the Presidential race as well as the trend of criminally charging the parents of mass shooters. We also talk about a new political ad campaign launched by gun control group March for Our Lives and Ben & Jerry's targeted at voters in swing states. We wrap up with some original reporting on the upcoming NRA board meeting where the group is potentially set to vote on an internal reform program and consider separating from its longtime outside legal counsel, William Brewer.

This week, we're covering the very first time since the Supreme Court handed down the Bruen ruling that a federal judge has struck down the machinegun ban. That may have implications for not just the ban itself but the law it is housed under: The National Firearms Act (NFA). That's why we've got a gun-rights lawyer who has handled NFA cases. Matt Larosiere gives his view of what the holding in US v. Morgan means for the ban on post-1986 fully-automatic weapons and the NFA writ large. He notes the case doesn't include an injunction against the ban. Instead, it's limited to the named defendant. He argued it's very likely to be appealed and unlikely to win at the next level, though he couldn't say for sure. Larosiere said the barrier to plaintiffs winning cases against the ban was less a legal one than a public or judicial perception one. Still, he argued the victory in Morgan was not meaningless. He said it would help him and other gun-rights activists in future cases against the ban as well as other portions of the NFA.Special Guest: Matt Larosiere.

Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I cover the latest federal campaign finance numbers showing gun control groups outraising the NRA and other gun rights organizations in the lead up to the election. We also talk about a pair of federal appeals court rulings, one striking down the federal gun ban for marijuana users and the other striking down Missouri's expansive Second Amendment Sanctuary law. Finally, we wrap up with a quick discussion of gun groups officially appealing to the Supreme Court over Maryland's AR-15 ban and a pair of dueling court decisions on the legality of switchblade bans from across the country.