The Weekly Reload Podcast

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.

Oregon's gun-control ballot initiative has put it at the center of the fight over guns in America. As the political battle ended with victory for Measure 114 and the deadline to implement a non-existent permit-to-purchase system closed in, a new front opened in the courts. Sam Paredes, a Gun Owners of America (GOA) board member and treasurer of the Gun Owners Foundation, was on the frontline of that legal battle. While multiple federal suits were unable to secure a Temporary Restraining Order against the law, GOA was able to convince a state judge the measure violated the Oregon Constitution's protections for the right to keep and bear arms. That decision has held thus far, despite an attempt by the state to get the Oregon Supreme Court to throw it out. Paredes joined the show this week to talk about where things stand now, and what's coming down the line. He said gun sales in Oregon will go on as usual for the time being, and the ban on magazines that hold more than ten rounds won't go into effect. But the fight isn't over as the state scrambles to create the permitting process and take the biggest practical issues with Measure 114 off the table. However, Paredes said GOA is encouraged by the Oregon Supreme Court's decision not to immediately intervene in the case. He said they may be hesitant to overturn the lower court's pro-gun ruling in the wake of the United States Supreme Court's ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. He argued they may not want to run afoul of Bruen and be overturned themselves. But the federal judge overseeing challenges to Measure 114 disagreed. She ruled the permit-to-purchase requirement and magazine ban likely don't violate the Second Amendment even under Bruen's text and tradition standard. Paredes said that judge did the analysis wrong. He argued the targeted magazines are in common use and protected, given SCOTUS's rulings in Heller and Caetano, and the permit-to-purchase law has no historical analogue. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss the surprising shift in the U.S. Senate's balance of power this week.Special Guest: Sam Paredes.

The race that will decide the final balance of power in the Senate will be decided in a matter of days. The contest in Georgia between incumbent Democrat Raphael Warnock and Republican challenger Hershel Walker won't determine who controls the Senate since Democrats have already accomplished that, but it will determine how easily they can move forward with President Joe Biden's executive and judicial appointments. That will significantly impact gun policy for the next two years. So, we've got Georgia State University professor Timothy Lytton on the show to talk about where the race is headed. Professor Lytton gives expert on-the-ground insight into how gun politics are affecting the race. He argues that gun policy is continually a major issue in the increasingly-purple state. And he says that while guns are unlikely to be a top issue in the campaign, they may be a decisive one for turning out votes. That's why it makes sense that the NRA is dumping millions of dollars into the race. It's also why the relative absence of the major gun-control groups is so surprising. But Lytton says they may still be contributing in other ways that aren't captured by Federal Elections Committee filings. We also go over Governor Brian Kemp's (R.) win over Democrat Stacey Abrams. Lytton said gun policy featured even more heavily in that race due to Kemp's successful push for permitless gun-carry earlier this year. But he's not so sure another big push to loosen the state's gun laws will be coming in the wake of Kemp's win. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogelman and I discuss new polling that shows the Supreme Court's latest Second Amendment decision is popular.Special Guest: Timothy Lytton.

This week on the podcast, we're discussing one of the many lawsuits currently trying to take down New York's latest gun-carry restrictions. Joining us on the show is Tzvi Waldman to discuss the New York State Jewish Gun Club's challenge to the ban on guns in places of worship. He argued the law, which keeps even those who are licensed by the state and authorized by their faith leader to carry from doing so, is unconstitutional. And he said it puts worshipers at greater risk of attack. Waldman said the law forces Jewish worshipers to choose between their First Amendment and Second Amendment rights. He noted the new restriction, which wasn't part of the state's previously-struck-down law, comes as antisemitism is on the rise. He said both threats and acts of violence against Jews have increased in recent months. Ultimately, he said the group plans to fight this case all the way up to the Supreme Court if necessary. He also talked at length about how the club has tried to destigmatize gun ownership for a lot of Jews. He said the Holocaust has served as both a catalyst for Jews to arm themselves and a reason many fear firearms. But Waldman's group is trying to normalize gun ownership and provide a community for Jews who do decide to buy guns. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I explain the Third Circuit's decision to uphold the non-violent felon gun ban.Special Guest: Tzvi Waldman.

The election is over, and it's time to read the tea leaves. That's why I'm bringing Cam Edward from Bearing Arms back on the show to interpret the results. How did the races we were watching turn out? How much impact did guns have on them? How much impact will the election have on guns? Cam says gun-rights advocates fared better than Republicans. While Republicans couldn't regain control of the Senate and appear to only have barely recaptured the House, gun-rights positions in ballot initiatives outperformed even popular Republican candidates on the same ballot. Additionally, key gubernatorial elections showed gun-rights candidates outperformed expectations. Still, it wasn't all good news for gun-rights advocates. The NRA lost much of its spending battle against the gun-control groups. And some officials who have made guns a major part of their public image, such as Congresswoman Lauren Boebert (R.), faced surprise upsets or extremely close races. Cam also sheds light on how the results might translate to real-world policy changes at the state and federal levels. Where are we likely to get new gun laws? Where is it unlikely? Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss a federal judge's decision blocking New York's gun-carry restrictions.Special Guest: Cam Edwards.

The midterm elections are upon us. As we've discussed previously, Americans are far less interested in gun policy than they were this summer. So, how will we be able to tell the effects of guns on the election? Axios Senior Political Correspondent Josh Kraushaar joins the show to talk about where we should focus our attention. There are a few races where guns are playing a more prominent role. The ballot initiatives in Iowa and Oregon that deal directly with gun policy are obvious examples. The gubernatorial races in Texas, Georgia, and New York are other races where guns are having a significant impact. But Kraushaar said overall control of Congress will be a really important tell because of how polarized gun politics have become. If Republicans win, it'll be a good sign for gun-rights proponents. If Democrats win, it'll be a good sign for gun-control advocates. It's that simple. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about Beto O'Rourke's struggle in Texas and Brady's new spending in two House races.Special Guest: Josh Kraushaar.