The Weekly Reload Podcast

This week, we're joined by the man behind the first "smart gun" that's going to come to market. Kai Kloepfer is the founder of Biofire, a company that has been getting a lot of attention since announcing it will ship a 9mm pistol with integrated biometric locks this year. He answered a wide array of different questions on smart guns and the Biofire model in particular. He explained how Biofire intertwines the operation of the firing mechanism with biometrics. Instead of using an electronic device to block a traditional trigger setup, they have eliminated the traditional system to substitute it with a fire-by-wire system. He said that was the only way they found to make the gun lock and unlock quickly enough to be useful for home defense. He also talked at length about how the company has worked to make the gun reliable--a key consideration for most gun owners that will likely determine if the company sinks or swims. He also addressed key political questions. Kloepfer said he believes his gun should be an option for consumers but never mandated. That's why he's filed an amicus letter in the case against California's handgun roster. We also talk about the unique possibilities that a fire-by-wire system opens up for things like adjustable trigger weights, shooting statistics, and even maintenance notifications. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss Congress taking on the pistol-brace ban. And I talk about the setback I just had in obtaining my DC concealed carry license.Special Guest: Kai Kloepfer.

This week, National Review's Jim Geraghty comes back to the show to give us his reaction to President Joe Biden's pistol-brace ban. As we reported first at The Reload, only a tiny fraction of the guns required to be registered actually were. Geraghty said he thinks Americans are distrustful of the government and unwilling to tell them what guns they have. He argued that effect is especially strong with Joe Biden in office given how aggressively he is trying to expand gun restrictions. That's part of the reason his gun policy approval numbers have tanked, Geraghty said. And it could affect him in a general election matchup with a pro-gun Republican. Of course, that could also drive disaffected Democrats back to his side. That is, if California Governor Gavin Newsom (D.) doesn't try to swoop in first. We discuss the possibility his new push to partially repeal the Second Amendment is actually a kind of shadow presidential campaign. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about a federal appeals court casting down on the non-violent felon gun ban.Special Guest: Jim Geraghty.

On this week's episode, The Watch's Radley Balko details the landmark decision of a Chicago judge not to allow firearm forensic experts to testify in a criminal case. Balko said the court's decision comes after years of criticism aimed at the field of forensic pattern matching. He argues many of the techniques made famous on shows like CSI have little scientific basis. Many, he said, are based on little more than the best guesses of examiners who are mainly just eyeballing evidence. He explained the idea that matching a mass-produced bullet to the mass-produced gun it was fired from, to the exclusion of all other guns, may well be impossible. Or, at the very least, we don't have advanced enough techniques to pull it off with the level of certainty you'd want for evidence that could put somebody in jail for years or even decades. Indeed, Balko noted, most examiners cited as experts in court are unwilling to even submit to outside tests of their methods. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about how far the injunctions against President Biden's pistol-brace ban extend. Jake also tells us about his latest rifle purchase, which is a bit of a throwback. And I give an update on how I'm liking the Phlster Enigma and appendix carry.Special Guest: Radley Balko.

This week, we have one of the people who inspired me to get into political writing all the way back in college. Ed Morrissey, the managing editor of Hot Air, has long been one of the most insightful conservative political analysts out there. He joins the show to break down the early days of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis's campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, especially his latest attacks on frontrunner Donald Trump's gun record. In one of his first interviews after launching his campaign, DeSantis said Trump's 2018 call to ‘take the guns first, go through due process second’ was "wrong" and "unconstitutional." DeSantis has spent months bolstering his pro-gun legislative accomplishments, and now he and his supporters are going after Trump's weak spots on guns and other policy positions. Ed said the strategy is a sound one and could pay dividends in the long run despite Trump's huge early polling lead. But he also said DeSantis would have to match that rhetorical attack with a robust ground game to have any hope of beating the former president. We also looked even further ahead at the potential general election matchup against President Joe Biden. His approval ratings have been tanking for a long while now, and Americans are particularly unhappy with how he's handled gun policy. Ed said Biden had nobody to blame but himself, especially overpromising Democrats on what kinds of gun control policies he could actually get done. Still, Ed noted those unhappy Democrats may ultimately come back and vote for him in a general election. I also give an update on how my new carry setup is evolving. I'm trying out the Phlster Enigma and modding it to try and get it as comfortable as possible, which may convince me to switch to appendix carry full-time. However, I ran into some new issues with my Sig Sauer P365 X-Macro and the red dot it came with. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I do our best to explain the latest developments with the injunctions against Biden's pistol-brace ban. (The Fifth Circuit issued a clarification that it does cover FPC members and Maxim Defense customers after we recorded the episode)Special Guest: Ed Morrissey.

This week, Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) joined the show to respond to questions about the group's finances. As I promised on the previous podcast, I asked Gottlieb about the ins and out of how the two non-profits he's a director of interact with the private entities he operates and what safeguards are in place to ensure the groups aren't being overcharged. He said SAF and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) have boards that approve the contracts with the private companies he owns, and he has no say over those decisions. He noted the relationships have been disclosed on the group's financial filings for decades, as required by law. He also attacked Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson (D.) for a year-long investigation into the group that has yet to produce any charges or legal action. He accused Ferguson of targeting the gun-rights groups because they have started several lawsuits against the state's gun laws in recent years. He compared the investigation to harassment and said they filed a civil rights suit against the state over the cost of compiling the documents they requested and the lost man-hours involved in complying with the AG's various demands. He said The Wall Street Journal, which broke the news of the investigation and raised questions about the gun group's finances, was negligent in repeating some of the accusations the AG has reportedly pursued without proper context. Gottlieb said one of the groups the paper implied he was profiting off of is actually a co-op that operates at cost. He said the other company he owns that does business with SAF and CCRKBA offers services at below-market rates. Gottlieb answered several other questions about how the groups have operated under his leadership over the years. And he gave an update on SAF's latest lawsuits against New Jersey and Maryland's latest gun-carry restrictions. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss the Supreme Court's decision not to issue an emergency injunction against an Illinois city's AR-15 ban.Special Guest: Alan Gottlieb.

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.