The Weekly Reload Podcast

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.

This week, we saw two federal appellate courts weigh in on the Second Amendment rights of people in the country unlawfully. The opinions covered a variety of positions on the question. Of course, they aren't the first courts to address the issue, and it's only become a more common challenge in the wake of 2022's New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. So, to dissect the state of the legal debate, we have Seattle University of Law professor Alan Mygatt-Tauber on the show. He has a law review article set to publish early next year that examines the state of the fight over undocumented immigrants and guns, as well as weighing in on the different arguments. Mygatt-Tauber said he's read every Second Amendment challenge to the illegal immigrant gun ban since Bruen was handed down. He said the most common outcome was a court holding that undocumented immigrants are part of "the people" protected by the Second Amendment, but upholding the gun ban as consistent with America's tradition of gun regulation. Then there were courts that determined they aren't protected by the Second Amendment at all. Finally, the least common holding was that they are protected, and the law is unconstitutional. He noted that the Sixth and Tenth Circuit holdings were both in the first category, but one included a notable, lengthy dissent explaining why all non-citizens don't enjoy Second, First, or Fourth Amendment rights. He noted that, even though he belives its the most accurate position, no court has yet held illegal immigrants are entitled to Second Amendment rights and the law barring them from possessing guns is unconstitutional.Special Guest: Alan Mygatt-Tauber.

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I assess the political reaction to a pair of terrible mass shootings in Australia and Rhode Island. We also cover two separate federal appeals court rulings that came down this week, each upholding the federal gun ban for illegal immigrants.

This week, we're covering a topic that may give you a bit of deja vu. Or, even, deja deja vu. That's because we've seen this all before. Twice. On Wednesday, a Fifth Circuit panel reissued its opinion in US v. Peterson for the second time. That makes it the third revision. To discuss the difference between the three, we have federal litigator and legal commentator Gabriel Malor back on the show. He noted that in every version, the panel upheld Peterson's conviction for possessing an unregistered silencer. However, he said each version became less expansive than the last. In the latest version, Malor pointed out that the subtle changes the panel made all went toward emphasizing that Peterson's Second Amendment challenge was only as-applied to him and that the panel thought he did a particularly bad job. Malor argued the panel was sending signals with its edits. He said the judges had moved pretty far from their original holding that silencers are not arms protected by the Second Amendment. And, even though they still ruled Peterson's challenge failed, they laid out a potential path for how other challengers might succeed.Special Guest: Gabriel Malor.

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I cover a new legal brief from the nation's largest gun-control groups filed in support of the Trump administration's position regarding the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act. We also discuss the DOJ's new Second Amendment division officially going live with an interesting take on who gun rights apply to.

This week, we're taking a deep dive into the new Second Amendment history course that the Department of Education just granted funding. To give us insight into what the University of Wyoming's Firearms Research Center, which received the grant, hopes to accomplish, we have Ashley Hlebinsky back on the show. She is the Executive Director of the center, wrote the grant request, and will be one of the main people overseeing development of the educational resources. She said the goal of the project is not to impart a partisan view of the Second Amendment or guns onto students, but, rather, to give educators access to primary sources and scholars from varying viewpoints. She said the grant process was anything but political, and insisted the course materials would be as well. Hlebinsky said the plan is to develop a digital archive of historical documents related to the creation and ratification of the Second Amendment, as well as the state and federal gun laws that have come since that time. She said the center would develop video lessons that could be used for teacher education or classroom instruction. The teachers will also have access to webinars featuring Second Amendment scholars and the opportunity to attend an in-person conference. The course material will be available to secondary school teachers nationwide. However, it won't be a mandatory course. Instead, it's an opt-in teaching resource intended to help improve civics education during the nation's 250th anniversary.Special Guest: Ashley Hlebinsky.

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I detail the latest monthly gun sales data, which showed Black Friday failed to juice gun sales as it has in recent years. We also cover the reaction from gun-rights groups to the Department of Justice's new dedicated Second Amendment office in its Civil Rights Division. Plus, I chat with a Reload subscriber in a new member segment.

This week, we're fielding questions from Reload Members! One of the perks of a membership is the ability to ask questions during our Q&A podcasts (and to join the show in a member segment). It's been long enough now that a new Q&A makes sense. After all, a lot has happened in the world of gun policy and politics. Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I cover questions on all sorts of topics. That includes the Supreme Court's two new Second Amendment cases, the High Court's reluctance to take up some of the highest-profile gun cases, and the justices' thinking around big Second Amendment cases. We also discuss the ins and outs of permitless carry, President Trump and Biden's performance on gun policy, and whether there's reason to think there's about to be a circuit split on the constitutionality of so-called assault weapons bans.

This week, we got a surprise nomination for the top role at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). On Tuesday, President Donald Trump quietly submitted Robert Cekada's nomination to the Senate. Cekada is currently ATF's Deputy Director and has worked at the agency for the last 20 years. To dissect what the pick means for gun politics and policy, we've got Bearing Arms' Cam Edwards back on the show. Cam said Cekada's background in law enforcement is likely to make him relatively uncontroversial in the Senate, which boosts his odds of being confirmed. He said Cekada could even gain at least some bipartisan support. But he also noted the same quality could irk some gun-rights activists. Cam agreed that Cekada was a much less aggressive pick than the two that former President Joe Biden made. He said picking a career ATF official to head up the ATF is unlikely to please those who want to see the agency change dramatically or even go away altogether. Still, he noted the gun industry is very supportive of Cekada's nomination and that could help sway other gun-rights advocates. Ultimately, he said the pick is likely to keep the ATF on its current trajectory. How people feel about the ATF's 2025 track record is probably a good barometer of how they'll feel about Cekada.Special Guest: Cam Edwards.