The Weekly Reload Podcast

The Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen is going to have a monumental impact on the nation's gun laws. So, we've spent quite a lot of time talking about it on the podcast. We've talked to analysts and experts, including National Review's Charles Cooke and Duke's Andrew Willinger. But we haven't talked to anybody who is directly involved in the legal fight. That's why Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is joining the show this week. His group is involved in dozens of cases across the country. That includes a number of the most high-profile post-Bruen cases, such as the one against the California youth gun advertising ban. Gottlieb said Bruen has completely upended the legal landscape. He said gun-rights advocates have a tremendous opportunity to win many more cases. He explained SAF's strategy for approaching the newly-unsettled landscape. He said SAF has come up with a tier system with the ones it thinks it's most likely to win in the first tier and the rest moving down tiers from there. Gottlieb said there are a lot of cases in that top tier, especially with the new laws California and New York have passed as a seemingly purposeful affront to the Court's ruling. He said he isn't much concerned about governments coming up with coherent defenses of their strict laws in light of Bruen, but he does think a form of legal minimization may become more common. We also have a new members segment this week featuring Douglas Jefferson! Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogelman and I talk about New York's shocking court filing where they compared their gun laws to bigoted historical gun bans.Special Guest: Alan Gottlieb.

About two-thirds of gun deaths each year are suicides. It's an incredible challenge facing the gun-owning community. It's also one they've begun organizing to address. One person leading that effort is Michael Sodini of Walk The Talk America. He joins the show this week to discuss how the industry and gun owners alike have partnered with mental health professionals to try and reduce the number of gun suicides each year. Sodini said explained the way the program came about and how it fills an important gap. When he first attempted to use the resources of his gun distribution company to fund a mental health intervention program for gun owners, he found there was nothing in place. So, he helped form Walk The Talk America to develop a program by gun owners and for gun owners. He said destigmatizing seeking mental health resources is an important way to help gun owners struggling with suicidal ideation. One key part of doing that is ensuring people that they can reach out for help without having to worry about losing their firearms. Often that's one key reason gun owners are hesitant. That's why Walk The Talk America works directly with mental health professionals to help them better understand how to reach out to gun owners without alienating them. They have also started a network of approved providers who have experience working with gun owners. They've begun connecting those in crisis with those trained and able to help. Sodini said the issue is one that the community needs to take seriously and do more to address. He lost a friend to gun suicide and knows exactly how devastating it can be. I, unfortunately, can say the same. The more gun owners can do to look out for each other, the fewer we will lose to suicide. That's the key takeaway, according to Sodini. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogelman and I discuss how a new California gun law is dashing the dreams of a young female Olympic hopeful. And we talk a bit about my girlfriend's search for a concealed carry gun and Jake's own carry gun update.Special Guest: Michael Sodini.

This week we're taking a closer look at the latest lawsuit against California's unique handgun restrictions. So, who better to talk to than one of the plaintiffs in the case? That's why I reached out to Reno May. He has joined the suit claiming California's ban on "unsafe" handguns violates the Second Amendment. May's case comes after two previous challenges to the law have failed. Plaintiffs in the new case, which include the California Rifle and Pistol Association, argue the Supreme Court's New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen decision calls for renewed scrutiny of the regulations. They contend the state's modern first-of-their-kind restrictions can't clear the text and tradition test set in Bruen because there is no historical analogue for the roster. The "microstamping" provision, which requires all new pistol models to include technology that does not exist in any production firearm on the planet, is at the core of the plaintiffs' problems with the law. May said it shows the goal is to restrict handgun ownership rather than keep unsafe firearms out of the safe. He said the same was true of the requirement that three approved guns be removed for every one gun added to the roster. May said the law has a number of contradictions that undermine it as well. He noted that law enforcement is allowed to own and carry pistols the state deems "unsafe," and the majority of the guns on the roster don't include the safety features required in the act. Joining the suit puts May in the company of others who operate popular YouTube channels focused on gun ownership. He explained why he decided to get more involved in activism and why he thinks other "GunTubers" are doing the same. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogelman and I talk about the new ATF inspection controversy and how it gives insight into the new relationship between the agency and the industry.Special Guest: Reno May.

This week we're bringing in a fresh perspective on the Supreme Court's landmark decisions in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. I've talked with National Review's Charles Cooke and Cam Edwards of Bearing Arms about the case and its likely fallout on previous episodes of the podcast. It's only sensible to try and get another credible voice who looks at the situation from a different point of view.  Andrew Willinger, the new executive director of Duke University's Center for Firearms Law, was gracious enough to fill that role. He gave his interpretation of what the court ruled in Bruen as well as its likely impact on Second Amendment cases moving forward. He argued the new text and tradition test leaves a lot of room for interpretation. He predicted there would be a lot of growing pains as the lower courts try to feel out how exactly to proceed with gun cases. Still, he said many modern gun regulations are at greater risk of being found unconstitutional under the Bruen standard. Plus, Contributing Editor Paul Crookston and I talk about the "assault weapons" ban just passed by the House.Special Guest: Andrew Willinger.

Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee voted to move an "assault weapons" ban for the first time in decades this week. The move came as a bit of a surprise. Democrats haven't passed an assault weapons ban at the federal level since the original one expired in 2004. They didn't include one alongside the other measures in the gun-control package they passed in the wake of the Uvalde shooting. So, I brought Cam Edwards from Bearing Arms on to discuss the changing tides. Cam is one of the most insightful pro-gun writers out there and has been for a long time. He follows gun developments in Congress as close as anyone. He said the move is perplexing in light of the latest polling. Assault weapons bans have actually lost support since Uvalde. Quinnipiac University found support for a ban at an all-time low this week. And that drop in support has coincided with their increased popularity. The National Shooting Sports Foundation reported more than 24.4 million ARs and AKs in circulation this week. Cam said Democrats are trying to use the ban as a wedge issue for their base. However, he doesn't see how the politics of passing the ban could help Democrats overcome the uphill battle they're facing in the midterm elections. He argued a show vote, which is what this will end up being if it does pass, is not going to satisfy most gun-control activists anyway. He also laid out how much of an "if" this vote really is. Democrats still don't have all the votes nailed down. They might not ever get there. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about the armed bystander who ended an Indiana mall shooting.Special Guest: Cam Edwards.

We've seen some of the worst acts of mass violence in American history this summer. That's why I wanted to bring on an expert in active shooter situations to give some insight into what causes these events and how they might be prevented. There are few people with a better understanding of the situation than the person who created the FBI's research program on active shooters: Katherine Schweit. She literally wrote the book on how to stop the killing. Schweit created the FBI's definition of "active shooter." While most media or activist counts for "mass shooting" focus on how many people are shot or killed, the FBI doesn't have an official definition for the term. Instead, it focuses on identifying people who attempt to carry out random public shootings regardless of whether they are successful. That makes it narrower than most definitions used by major media outlets, which incorporated many gang or crime-related shootings, but broader than definitions from the Associated Press or Mother Jones that focus on mass shootings where the attacker is able to kill many people. Schweit said that was the goal of her approach since it gives an opportunity to study trends that appear among those who attempt these attacks. She said nearly all of the active shooters the FBI has profiled over the past decade are young men. Most use handguns. And most are triggered by a combination of different stressors such as financial distress or social ostracization. Shcweit said the FBI's research has identified ways that shootings can be prevented. She said a big part of the solution is for people to speak up when they notice the warning signs somebody may be spiraling toward violence. She even explained a recent example where a co-worker successfully stopped a likely attacker after he threatened to carry out an attack. Plus, Contributing Editor Paul Crookston joins the show to talk about the flood of post-Bruen lawsuits.Special Guest: Katherine Schweit.

This week we're starting to examine the real-world effects of the Supreme Court's Bruen decision. With New York's restrictive gun-carry law being struck down, more people will actually be able to carry in the state. So, it's essential to understand who some of those people are and why they want to carry in the first place. That's why we have Laura E. Adkins on the show. Adkins recently wrote an opinion piece for The New York Times on her desire to arm herself. As a single woman living in New York City, she doesn't always feel totally secure. She described a fatal shooting of another woman nearby her home as one reason why. Police response times are another. Beyond basic safety concerns, though, Adkins said a recent relationship ended poorly, and she now feels increasingly threatened by her former partner. She obtained a restraining order but was told she likely wouldn't qualify for a carry permit under the now-defunct law. Adkins said she is hopeful the Supreme Court's ruling will mean she can obtain one soon. But she also recognized the new restrictions New York officials implemented in response to the decision will limit her options even if she does get a permit. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogelman and I discuss the Congressional reaction to the July 4th mass shooting.Special Guest: Laura E. Adkins.

Thanks to the first major Second Amendment ruling from the Supreme Court in over a decade and the first new federal gun restrictions in a generation there's a lot of uncertainty about America's gun laws. So, we thought it was a good time to answer some of your questions. Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I took submissions from Reload Members on their most pressing concerns. We got questions on everything from how the ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen affects the other pending gun cases before the Court to how stable the new standard set in the case really is. We talked about whether Bruen presents a risk to the new federal gun law and the details of the new law's gun provisions. We also covered the impact of not just Bruen but also the Court's ruling in a recent EPA case on a variety of ATF regulations.

Two of the biggest gun stories in decades came to a head this week. The Supreme Court's anticipated Bruen decision invalidate "may issue" gun carry permit laws nationwide just before the federal government passed its first new gun restrictions in a generation. These shifts are monumental. That's why this week we're joined by one of the top pro-gun thinkers out there: National Review's Charles Cooke. Cooke has already written extensively on the ruling and the legislation. He said both would have far-reaching consequences. He argued the ruling puts the Second Amendment back on par with the First Amendment. It will not only eliminate restrictive "may-issue" gun-carry permitting, but it will cast a shadow over all kinds of other modern gun laws. Any regulation without a clear place in the founding-era tradition of gun laws will have a difficult time in court. As for the new federal gun law, Cooke argues the bill was poorly drafted with multiple confusing provisions and apparent drafting errors. He questioned why domestic violence records for "dating partners" are expunged after five years but no other records are. He noted how expansive it will be to make it illegal to sell guns to anyone with a juvenile felony conviction or involuntary commitment or how precarious the new gun dealing license requirements could make selling even a single firearm. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman explains a new lawsuit against Colorado police who killed a concealed carrier after he stopped an active shooter.Special Guest: Charles Cooke.

Senate gun negotiations carried on this week after encountering a few speed bumps. That's why I had another top Capitol Hill reporter on the show. This week, I'm joined by Burgess Everett of Politico. He has spent decades reporting on and talking to the key senators at the center of the gun deal. Everett said that while the deal has a lot of momentum, he's seen many so-called must-pass bills fail. He said that red flag grants being expanded to non-red-flag laws and how gun prohibitions should be extended to those that commit violence against their girlfriends are creating the most consternation. How those details get ironed out could determine whether a deal gets through at all. But Everett said the way senators are planning to change the background check system to get at juvenile criminal records is likely to be much more consequential than those two provisions. It appears the plan is to create a special new process for those 18 to 20 years old, one that includes a pseudo waiting period to ensure the FBI can access the often-sealed records. Despite the complexity and impact of the background check change, Everett said it has yet to generate any noticeable controversy among the senators. Mary Katharine Ham joins the show for a members' segment too. She explains her background with guns and what it's like to do shows on CNN or ABC while being a pro-gun commentator. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss Texas Governor Gregg Abbott's (R.) policy response to the Uvalde shooting.Special Guest: Burgess Everett .