The Weekly Reload Podcast

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss the new "assault firearm" and ammunition magazine ban passed by the Virginia legislature this week. We also cover the Los Angeles County Superior Court's admission that it failed to report roughly 147,000 felony convictions to the state background check system. Links: https://thereload.com/virginia-legislature-passes-ar-15-ammo-mag-sales-ban/ https://thereload.com/los-angeles-court-didnt-report-felony-convictions-to-background-check-system-for-years/ https://thereload.com/beretta-fires-back-after-ruger-accuses-italian-gunmaker-of-hostile-takeover-attempt/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2026/03/10/trump-felons-gun-rights-mel-gibson/89069619007/ https://calmatters.org/politics/2026/03/california-gun-control-laws-newsom-firearm/

This week, we're taking a deep dive into the Supreme Court's latest Second Amendment case. The Court spent nearly two hours debating the merits of US v. Hemani. They were trying to figure out whether the modern ban on drug users, even just those who smoke weed, is relevantly similar to Founding Era laws related to "habitual drunkards." The back-and-forth seemed to create some interesting splits among the justices and scrambled the Court's usual ideological coalitions. To analyze the fallout from oral arguments, we have the Independence Institute's David Kopel back on the show. He has been one of the most influential Second Amendment scholars over the past 30 years, being cited in cases from the Supreme Court on down the federal judiciary. He filed a brief with the National Rifle Association arguing that the justices should side with Hemani in his challenge to the ban. Kopel said he was a bit surprised at how oral arguments seemed to go for Hemani. He had expected greater pushback from more of the justices, especially the liberal bloc. He said the majority of the Court appeared skeptical of the law's constitutionality. However, he said it is always possible that a justice doesn't vote the way their questions might imply. It's possible the liberals side with the government or Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, who were most skeptical of Hemani, end up going the other way. Still, he concluded that whatever the Court does in the case, it'll likely have a major impact just on the basis of how fresh Second Amendment jurisprudence is at this moment.Special Guest: David Kopel.

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss a new ruling from the DC Court of Appeals determining that the District's ten round magazine limit violates the Second Amendment, at least as applied to a particular criminal defendant. We also cover new NSSF background check data showing a surge in gun sales in Virginia while the state weighs strict new gun control bills, plus we recap the week's Supreme Court oral arguments in US v. Hemani. Links: https://thereload.com/dcs-highest-court-strikes-down-ammo-magazine-ban/ https://thereload.com/virginia-gun-sales-surge-as-democrats-move-dozens-of-new-restrictions/ https://thereload.com/supreme-court-skeptical-of-marijuana-user-gun-ban-in-oral-arguments/ https://thereload.com/analysis-the-path-for-the-government-to-win-scotus-weed-and-guns-case-member-exclusive/ https://thereload.com/analysis-have-gun-rights-advocates-found-a-way-around-the-machinegun-sales-ban-member-exclusive/ https://wvmetronews.com/2026/03/03/machine-gun-legislation-gets-jammed-up-in-west-virginia-senate/ https://www.texastribune.org/2026/03/05/tony-gonzales-drops-out-republican-primary-texas-23rd-district-congress/

This week, we're doing something a bit different. Instead of one guest, we have three. They are all members of a new initiative trying to break the decades-old logjam around gun policy. The participants from Bridging the Divide join the show to discuss how their detailed policy proposals differ from the ones our debate has centered around for years. Dr. Michael Siegel of Tufts University, Rob Pincus of the Second Amendment Organization, and Jonathan Lowy of Global Action on Gun Violence join the show to explain their role in the project. Dr. Siegel provides an overview of the effort, while Pincus and Lowy explain the input they provided and the compromises they reached. Pincus noted the effort isn't part of a pre-existing gun group and isn't a traditional organization at all. Instead, Siegel said it's a working group that was put together to try to update gun policy with the goal of reducing violent crime while filling the gaps in current policy. He said a big part of achieving that goal involved getting input from gun owners and gun-rights activists in addition to academics and gun-control advocates. The working group, which went public on Thursday, produced a comprehensive policy plan complete with model legislation. They propose new variations for background checks, extreme risk protection orders, community violence intervention, suicide prevention, firearm prohibitions, dealer regulations, gun storage, and gun injury prevention. All of them have been updated to address some long-running complaints about their effectiveness or their potential to infringe on people's gun rights. Pincus and Lowy, unlikely bedfellows given that one owns a gun company and the other has made a career of suing them, said they were proud of the work the group has done and felt their input was actually incorporated into the proposals. They both explained what they thought was the best idea in the plan and why they felt it was important for them to be involved. Siegel admitted the policy proposals are likely to face plenty of criticism, even with the effort to try and address many of the long-standing critiques associated with each of them. He said it would likely be an uphill battle to get the proposals turned into law. But he noted the group included lawmakers as part of the working group, and he said he is confident in their plan to get other legislators on board.Special Guests: Jonathan Lowy, Michael Siegel, and Rob Pincus.

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I recap President Trump's latest State of Union address, which was conspicuously light on any discussion of his administration's gun policy approach. We discuss how to interpret that omission. We also cover documents in the Epstein Files that show the convicted sex criminal's pursuit of gun rights restoration numerous times up until his second arrest. Stories: https://thereload.com/trump-snubs-gun-rights-in-longest-state-of-the-union-speech-on-record/ https://thereload.com/jeffrey-epstein-continually-tried-to-get-gun-rights-back-after-first-sex-crime-conviction/ https://thereload.com/scotus-refuses-nra-free-speech-case-return-lets-qualified-immunity-ruling-stand/ https://www.ammoland.com/2026/02/ccrkba-demands-bloomberg-come-clean-about-epstein-relationship/ http://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2026/02/23/nssf-asks-scotus-to-overturn-new-york-public-nuisance-law-targeting-gun-industry-n1231654 https://www.wboy.com/news/west-virginia/west-virginia-politics/west-virginia-could-sell-its-residents-machine-guns-under-new-bill/

This week, we're taking a comprehensive look at the dozens of gun bills up for debate in Virginia. Our guest is Philip Van Cleave. He's the president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), and one of the top gun-rights activists working in Richmond. He has been on the ground since the beginning of the session, and he has tracked every gun bill going through the legislature. So far, 33 gun bills have passed through at least one chamber. Many have passed through both. Some are already identical copies, and on their way to Governor Abigal Spanberger's (D.) desk, where she's expected to sign them. However, Van Cleave said there are several bills that each house will have to reconcile during what's called "crossover" in Virginia. That's where he believes gun-rights activists still have a chance to block at least some of the bills. He noted they were already able to block a few bills, such as the proposed $500 tax on suppressors. Still, he said it's going to be an uphill battle to block big-ticket items like the "assault weapons" banand numerous gun-carry restrictions. But he said VCDL is going to keep pressuring lawmakers and the governor until the session ends. Then he said they plan to pursue legal actions if some of the more aggressive restrictions pass.Special Guest: Philip Van Cleave.

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I examine what the Department of Justice's released Epstein files reveal about how much contact he had with Michael Bloomberg, the top funder of the gun-control movement. We also cover Epstein's repeated interest in shooting sports and the gun industry well after his 2008 sex crime conviction rendered him ineligible to possess firearms. Links: https://thereload.com/michael-bloomberg-had-closer-ties-to-jeffrey-epstein-ghislaine-maxwell-than-previously-known/ https://thereload.com/epstein-kept-agreeing-to-shooting-trips-even-after-sex-crime-conviction/ https://thereload.com/jeffrey-epstein-considered-investing-in-major-gun-company-after-sandy-hook-despite-sex-crime-record/ http://thereload.com/epstein-guns-and-sex-crimes-a-timeline-member-exclusive/ https://www.abqjournal.com/news/bill-that-would-have-banned-extremely-dangerous-weapons-tightened-dealer-security-stalls/2984103

This week, we're looking at the bleeding edge of gun-rights legal fights: 3D-printed gun file sharing. After a years-long hiatus, news just dropped in one of the major legal skirmishes. The Third Circuit threw out a challenge to New Jersey's file-sharing ban on Thursday. Just before that, California sued our guest for publishing gun files on the open internet. That guest is Florida gun-rights lawyer Matt Larosiere. He joins the show to explain California's claims against him as well as the federal lawsuit he filed against California in Florida. Larosiere accused California of filing suit for purely political reasons. He argued the state's claims are weak and its demand for nearly $8 million in damages is absurd. He claimed the state is effectively trying to impose its will on other states, even though neither he nor the other defendants ever went to California or intentionally shared information with anyone there. He believes the Constitution is clear that gun designs and files are protected speech. Even if you drill down into more technical computer code associated with 3D printing of guns, Larosiere argued those files are protected by the First Amendment as well. That's why he was hopeful the test the Third Circuit created for judging the nexus between gun files and the First Amendment would actually help his case, despite that court ultimately dismissing a claim against New Jersey's file-sharing ban.Special Guest: Matt Larosiere.

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss a long-awaited ruling out of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which tossed a lawsuit brought by gun-rights activists against New Jersey's ban on sharing digital gun designs. We also cover a major settlement against a gun accessory maker that gun-control advocates blamed, at least in part, for the Tops grocery store shooting in Buffalo, New York. Story links: https://thereload.com/newsletter-digital-gun-designs-back-in-third-circuits-crosshairs/ https://thereload.com/third-circuit-tosses-challenge-to-new-jersey-3d-printed-gun-file-ban/ https://thereload.com/analysis-the-third-circuits-new-test-for-whether-3d-printed-gun-files-are-protected-speech-member-exclusive/ https://thereload.com/gun-accessory-maker-agrees-to-1-75-million-settlement-in-buffalo-shooting-lawsuit/ https://thereload.com/gun-sales-slow-in-january-despite-silencer-upswing/ https://youtu.be/-L9fwWdOJ50?si=qWq6ILWBi0mmJhdn https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/12/us/video/firearms-expert-analyzes-masked-subjects-gun-and-holster-in-nancy-guthrie-disappearance-lcl https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/gun-trainers-nationwide-say-women-liberals-are-taking-interest-classes-rcna258195 https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2026/feb/9/virginia-gun-owners-dealers-unload-states-proposed-firearms-crackdown/

This week, we're focused on the backlash to US Attorney Jeanine Pirro's recent comments about locking up "law-abiding" gun owners who travel to Washington, DC. Pirro said she would send anyone who carried a gun into the city straight to jail. Her comments came on the heels of President Donald Trump, who appointed her, saying he didn't like that Alex Pretti was carrying a gun before being shot to death by immigration agents. Gun-rights activists, longtime allies of the president, have been outraged by all of this. We've got Bearing Arms editor Cam Edwards on the show to weigh Pirro's walkbacks and the political cost of all this. He argued Pirro's follow-up comments don't even really qualify as walkbacks, and he doesn't think gun-rights activists are likely to forgive or forget soon. He also criticized Pirro and other DC officials for a lack of transparency over how frequently they arrest or charge people with standalone gun-carry crimes. Still, Cam argued that, while many Democrats have made pro-gun statements in the wake of Pretti's killing, he didn't see any good reason to believe they are becoming a viable alternative for gun-rights advocates. He pointed to Virginia and New Mexico Democrats advancing sweeping new gun sales bans, and even a ban on the ammunition magazines Pretti carried as evidence the party hasn't actually changed. Though he noted there may be reason to think that at least some Democratic voters are shifting on the issue. Cam said the Trump Administration's recent approach to guns leaves activists between a rock and a hard place. He said it could try to win back gun owners by making a splashy announcement reversing course on enforcing DC's gun carry restrictions. However, he isn't sure whether Trump even wants to reverse course, and Republicans may end up paying a price at the polls in November over all this.Special Guest: Cam Edwards.

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss US Attorney Jeanine Pirro's recent comments promising to crack down on gun carry in Washington DC, which drew widespread criticism from gun-rights supporters. We discuss how they arrived as DC police still haven't resumed publishing data on gun crime arrest statistics despite pledging to do so. We also cover the relatively uncontroversial confirmation hearing for Trump's ATF Director nominee, Robert Cekada. Episode links: https://thereload.com/trump-atf-director-nominee-faces-little-pushback-in-confirmation-hearing/ https://thereload.com/ninth-circuit-upholds-parts-of-california-switchblade-ban/ https://www.ms.now/opinion/jeanine-pirro-trump-gun-rights-second-amendment-comments https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6999636/2026/01/26/packers-rasheed-walker-arrested-gun/?unlocked_article_code=1.JVA.RvRf.j3r9ekb6_g1x&source=athletic_user_shared_gift_article_copylink&smid=url-share-ta

This week, we're taking a close look at the key moments in the Alex Pretti shooting. To do that, we've got one of the best use-of-force experts out there: John Correia. John has run Active Self Protection for years, where he has analyzed countless videos of self-defense and police-involved shootings over the last decade. He is also a gun-safety instructor and expert witness. He said there are several key moments from the shooting that provide insight into the likely legality of the agents' actions. He pointed to the moment the first agent came over to shove the woman next to Pretti, the moment he interceded with that agent, the point where he was taken to the ground, the moment Pretti was disarmed, and the point where the first shots were taken as important to understand. He explained why those interactions would be paramount for a potential jury considering the case. He also discussed Pretti's decision to carry a gun. He said, despite President Donald Trump's comments to the contrary, carrying an extra magazine isn't unusual. Though, he also said he wouldn't advise people to carry places where they know there may be an elevated level of risk. But he said that if it's legal, it's ultimately up to the carrier to decide. Ultimately, Correia gave his overall assessment of Pretti's killing and the agents' conduct.Special Guest: John Correia.

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss the ongoing fallout from the Alex Pretti shooting as it relates to gun politics, including the fact that Trump administration officials have repeatedly questioned common gun carry practices. Meanwhile, prominent Democrats and gun-control advocates have rhetorically defended Pretti's Second Amendment rights, even as their allies in Virginia are advancing legislation that would have criminalized nearly every aspect of his conduct. Links: https://thereload.com/newsletter-the-fallout-from-the-alex-pretti-shooting/ https://thereload.com/trump-doubles-down-on-attacking-gun-carry-in-wake-of-alex-pretti-killing/ https://thereload.com/analysis-will-trumps-anti-carry-comments-translate-to-policy-member-exclusive/ https://thereload.com/several-gun-rights-groups-call-for-investigation-into-ice-killing-of-ccw-permittee/ https://thereload.com/virginia-democrats-advance-assault-weapon-ban-magazine-confiscation-language/ https://thereload.com/analysis-is-the-atfs-new-rule-for-drug-users-a-curb-your-enthusiasm-scenario/ https://www.ms.now/opinion/trump-alex-pretti-nra-cbp-minneapolis-shooting-essayli https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2026/01/29/doj-sides-with-2a-groups-in-challenge-to-massachusetts-gun-ban-n1231386 https://www.abqjournal.com/news/gun-bill-sparks-emotional-debate-at-roundhouse/2970242

This week, we're taking a deep dive into the Supreme Court oral arguments in Wolford v. Lopez. To do that, we have one of the people who was directly involved: Wolford's lawyer, Alan Beck. He joined the show to give us a preview of the case before oral arguments. Now, he's back to give us a rundown of how everything went from his perspective. Beck said being in the room was an entirely different experience from listening to arguments online or reading a transcript. He said the justices were more expressive than many of the other federal judges he's argued in front of before, and it gave him extra insight into how arguments were going. He noted that at different points some of them even became visibly exasperated with some of what his opponent was saying, especially during the portion where they discussed a Black Code as evidence for Hawaii's modern gun-carry restriction. Beck said he believes a majority of the justices favored his position. He said Justice Amy Coney Barrett appeared skeptical of his view about Second Amendment rights on private property, but he believes she came to understand his position after a long back-and-forth. Meanwhile, he said he thought his argument about the incompatibility of Hawaii's restrictions with American history won over a lot of the justices, perhaps even Justice Elana Kagan.Special Guest: Alan Beck.

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.