The Weekly Reload Podcast

This week, we're discussing the growing phenomenon of female gun ownership. To dive into the demographic change and its fascinating implications, we have two academics who were involved in a new edition of the magazine Vital City that focused on women and guns. Kerri Raissian, Executive Director of Yale’s Firearm Injury Prevention Team, co-edited the wide-ranging edition. University of Kansas professor Margaret Kelley, author of A Gun of Her Own: The Everyday Lives of Women Who Shoot, wrote what I think is one of the magazine's best pieces. They both join the show to explore the ins and outs of why women are buying more guns. Raissian said she got a grant to put the edition together with Vital City. She said the goal was to bring a focus on the unique ways guns and gun ownership impact women. She argued women are a growing portion of gun owners, but much of the research, discussion, and even laws are focused on how men use guns. That's where Kelley's research comes in. Her piece, an offshoot of her book, focuses on actual conversations and surveys with female gun owners. She said her evidence points to specific motivations women cite for gun ownership, primarily as an extension of their impulse to care for others, that may differ from men. She said they also tend to weigh considerations, like moral injury, very heavily.Special Guests: Kerri Raissian and Margaret Kelley.

Reload Reporter Julie Miller and I cover the first injunction issued against a "Glock ban," which came in a Connecticut case. Then we look at growing opposition to Flock cameras among gun owners. And we discuss my critique of a New York Times report on AR-15s, which Julie provides some insider insight into since she worked there at the beginning of her career. Links: -https://thereload.com/federal-judge-temporarily-blocks-connecticut-glock-ban/ -https://thereload.com/analysis-why-connecticuts-glock-ban-was-blocked-after-californias-wasnt-member-exclusive/ -https://thereload.com/gun-advocates-raise-alarm-over-flock-cameras/ -https://thereload.com/analysis-new-york-times-gun-reporting-mistakes-indicative-of-industry-issue-member-exclusive/Special Guest: Julie Miller.

This week, we're looking at a Fourth Amendment case out of New Hampshire. To do that, we have the Second Amendment Foundation's (SAF) Bill Sack with us to describe how his group secured a settlement with Hillsboro-Deering High School over the search of a student's car. He said school officials decided to search then-18-year-old Jack Harrington’s car for a gun despite not having permission or a good reason to believe there was one inside. Sack said the officials concluded Harrington might have a gun because he'd told a friend on the baseball team about a traffic stop that had happened more than a week earlier. Harrington described how he'd been pulled over while legally carrying his pistol, and the stop went forward without issue. He wasn't arrested or charged or even accused of doing anything illegal, and the stop didn't happen near the school. Sack said school officials pulled Harrington from class to demand permission to search his car after hearing about the traffic stop. He said they did not have any reason to think Harrington had brought the gun to school or any accusation that he'd made any threats to the school. Still, they pressed him to search his car. Harrington refused to give permission for the search, but the school officials conducted it anyway. Sack said they found there was no gun in the car. That's where the SAF suit came in. They helped Harrington sue, alleging the school violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The school settled and admitted the search was illegal, which Sack said SAF plans to use as a bulwark against similar situations around the country.Special Guest: Bill Sack.

In a shortened and early update, I detail the Ninth Circuit's decision to uphold novel Hawaiian gun-buying restrictions by using a "carve-out" it identified in the Supreme Court's Bruen decision. Then I explain the latest poll to look at what Americans think the Supreme Court should do in its upcoming AR-15 case. I also discuss an interesting argument that the Court should look at Revolutionary-Era privateers for answers on that case. And I cover the Department of Justice's new opinion on handgun sales to 18-to-20-year-olds. Links: -https://thereload.com/full-ninth-circuit-reverses-course-on-hawaii-handgun-purchase-limits-upholds-restrictions/ -https://thereload.com/poll-americans-split-on-what-scotus-should-do-in-ar-15-case/ -https://thereload.com/analysis-how-revolutionary-era-privateers-play-into-the-supreme-court-ar-15-case/ -https://thereload.com/doj-says-federal-ban-on-handgun-sales-to-adults-under-21-is-unconstitutional/ -https://thereload.com/analysis-doj-takes-a-shot-at-permit-to-purchase-laws-member-exclusive/ -https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-minnesota-st-paul-and-minneapolis-over-firearm-purchase-waiting

This week, we're talking to the man at the center of a brand new legal fight in the gun world. The Firearms Blog TV founder, James Reeves, was subpoenaed in an Everytown-backed lawsuit seeking to hold Smith and Wesson liable for the Highland Park mass shooting. The plaintiffs are trying to prove the gun company's marketing contributed to the shooting, which is a hard lift but not a new tactic. What is new is how they're trying to do it. That's where Reeves comes in. Reeves doesn't work for Smith and Wesson. He is a lawyer, gun-rights activist, and gun reviewer. He doesn't have any obvious direct connection to the Highland Park shooting. But the plaintiffs want a trove of documents from him anyway. Why? Because, as Reeves puts it, they are treating all gun reviews as de facto advertisements. They believe Smith and Wesson pays reviewers either directly or under the table to try and make their guns more appealing to unstable young people like the Highland Park shooter. Reeves said he has never done any undisclosed advertising for Smith and Wesson or any other gun company. He also said he's never taken direction from them or anyone else on what points to make in a review. He argued that while there are ethical issues in the gun review industry, they aren't nearly as cartoonish as what the gun-control groups imagine. Ultimately, Reeves accused the plaintiffs of lawfare. He said they're trying to circumvent federal protections for gun business, and they're trying to inflict pain on them through the legal process. He then explained why he ultimately decided to tell the plaintiffs he doesn't have what they're looking for, rather than fight tooth and nail to avoid answering at all.Special Guest: James Reeves.