This week, we're doing something a bit different. I've been working with the National Journalism Center for a long time. They have a great program to train up and coming reporters. And we've been doing a range day as part of that training in recent years. So, the program's director T. Becket Adams joined me on the show to discuss what our gun reporting lesson looks like. He also gave his assessment of how much of the media covers firearms, the problem with the approach, and the solution to it. Part of that solution, he said, includes real-world training on key issues in gun politics as well as on how guns function. That's exactly what we give to the young reporters who come through our class. Becket said our program is the only of its kind he's ever heard of, and hopes other groups and media outlets adopt or replicate what we're doing. Special Guest: T Becket Adams.

Host Jake Fogleman and Reload Founder Stephen Gutowski discuss an 85-year-old woman defending herself in a harrowing burglary, the perspective of a new Israeli gun owner, and Tennessee's new school gun safety program. They also cover how Washington's magazine ban was blocked and then immediately unblocked. Plus, they dissect how Biden's latest rule casts doubt over used gun sales and Stephen gives an update on farm life.

This week, we're discussing a hotly debated topic: the gun rights of illegal immigrants. A federal judge's recent ruling that the law disarming a defendant who is in the country unlawfully, but who doesn't have any violent convictions, violates the Second Amendment has drawn a lot of attention. It has been one of our most trafficked stories at The Reload this year. The same is true for the dueling analysis pieces we published examining the ruling's legal theory and where the Supreme Court might come down on the issue. Given the discussion surrounding all of this, it seemed like a good idea to take a deeper dive into the topic. That's why we asked gun-rights lawyer Matt Larosiere, who wrote one of those analysis pieces for us, to come on the show. He gave us a fuller explanation of why he believes the Second Amendment protects nearly all people in the United States, regardless of their immigration status. He argued the modern gun prohibition based on immigration status shouldn't be able to withstand the Supreme Court's Bruen test because the Founders didn't view citizenship the way we do today and the Second Amendment's language is better read to protect nearly anyone in the country. He said reading the amendment to exclude those who aren't part of the political community doesn't work because the average American wasn't allowed to vote or participate in other key political functions during the Founding Era. Yet they did have their gun rights protected. He also argued that denying gun rights to immigrants in the country unlawfully, which is only a misdemeanor, necessitates adopting a legal standard that would put everyone else's gun rights at risk. Still, Larosiere acknowledged the recent ruling is an outlier and the Supreme Court is unlikely to take up a similar case anytime soon. But he argued gun-rights proponents should embrace the ruling and the logic that led to it. Special Guest: Matt Larosiere.

On this week's News Update, Jake Fogleman and Stephen Gutowski examine why gun sales have declined through the first three months of 2024. They also highlight a California journalist's examination of the "assault weapon" ban, Massachusetts lawmakers taking gun discussions behind closed doors, and an AP poll showing Americans find gun rights important. Jake also details the findings of a recent study on Colorado's "red flag" law usage in "Second Amendment sanctuary" counties. Plus, Steve previews his upcoming range trip with students at the National Journalism Center.

This week, we're examining the implications of Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin (R.) vetoing 30 different gun-control bills. Joining us to do that is Cam Edwards of Bearing Arms. He has long been one of the top pro-gun analysts out there. He also happens to live in Virginia, like me. So, he has paid special attention to the fight over guns in Virginia. Not just this year either, but for the last several election cycles. He argued the dynamics at play during this year's legislative session were pretty surprising. Not only did we not know what Youngkin would do with the dozens of gun bills that made it to his desk before he formally announced his vetoes, but the way those proposals got through the legislature was surprising too. Every Democrat in the state house held together to vote for every single proposal, even the more aggressive bans and restrictions. Cam said that was a fascinating development given the large grassroots backlash the party faced after its last attempt to enact sweeping gun reforms in 2020. He also argued the dynamic that has developed in the state's gun politics should be very concerning for gun-rights advocates. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss President Biden's approval on guns falling below 30 percent. Special Guest: Cam Edwards.

This week, we're looking at another Supreme Court case. This one involves the National Rifle Association, but not the Second Amendment. Instead, NRA v. Vullo is a First Amendment claim. On Monday, the High Court held oral arguments in the case. So, we've got FIRE's Bob Corn-Revere on the show to discuss how those went. He filed a brief in support of the NRA on behalf of the group. But he also has a long history in First Amendment litigation, including at the Supreme Court. He explained the basics of the case. Then he walked through why he believes former New York financial regulator Maria Vullo's efforts to get insurance companies to drop the NRA over its "gun promotion" activities ran afoul of the group's free speech rights. He also reacted to the questions each justice asked during arguments and gave some insight into what they tell us about how the Court is leaning. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about a report that shows the Maine shooter could have and should have been disarmed. Special Guest: Bob Corn-Revere.

Crime is a significant problem in Hartford, Connecticut, and some residents don't think local politicians and law enforcement are doing enough to combat it. Some of those residents have now decided to do organized armed patrols in Hartford's more dangerous neighborhoods. Cornell Lewis is one of the people doing that organizing. He runs a group called the Self-Defense Brigade, and he joined the show this week to explain his group's tactics and motivations. Lewis said he and the other volunteers who've been patrolling streets are fed up with the violence that has been carried out there. He said they want to show anyone considering committing violent crime that the community is capable of and willing to push back. The group gained local attention for its patrols last year but has gotten much more attention after it decided to step up efforts in the wake of a double homicide in the city last month. Not everyone has welcomed the group's efforts, though. Some local law enforcement, politicians, and community groups have said armed civilian patrols will only cause more problems for Hartford. Lewis responded to those critiques by saying the Self-Defense Brigade has no intention of being a vigilante group and is merely trying to train the community in lawful defensive techniques. Lewis said the group's methods have been effective, there have been no violent incidents associated with their marches, and none of the volunteers have been arrested or done anything illegal. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss a federal appeals court upholding Rhode Island's magazine ban. And we have a Reload Member on to discuss his experience as a recent convert to gun ownership in Washington, D.C. Special Guest: Cornell Lewis.

This week, we're answering your questions on the show! That's right, it's time for another Q&A episode of the podcast. The questions are submitted by Reload Members, then Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman, and I do our best to answer them. As expected, this episode features a lot of great questions that really stretch our knowledge. We tackled a wide variety of topics. Members asked about everything from permits in permitless carry states to the number of lifetime NRA members to the Supreme Court's view of machine guns. The questions take us all over the place. Plus, I describe how speaking to a group of Columbia University students earlier this week went.

Last week, a jury found the NRA did not safeguard its charitable fund or those who raised concerns about how they were being spent on former CEO Wayne LaPierre's lavish personal expenses. This week, we have one of those whistle-blowers on the show to give his view of the verdict as well as the group's future. Former NRA board member Judge Phillip Journey was among the eight insiders the jury said didn't receive protection when he spoke out about the group's mismanagement. He said the jury came to the correct conclusion. And he argued Judge Joel Cohen should appoint a monitor to make sure corruption is rooted out of the organization for good. Journey said he was sympathetic toward criticism of New York Attorney General Letitia James's (D.) political motivations. But he also said he had no choice in testifying at the trial, and the facts of the case were plainly against the NRA's current and former leadership. He argued drastic change is necessary for the NRA to survive and return to form. He explained the platform he and three other board candidates are running on in the current NRA election. Journey said he hopes the verdict and LaPierre's resignation will convince many current board members to join the reform effort, but acknowledged he hasn't gotten very far to this point and it's likely to remain an uphill internal fight. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I dissect oral arguments in the Supreme Court's bump stock ban case. Special Guest: Phillip Journey.

On this week's episode, we dive into the details of the verdict in the NRA's corruption case. As Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss, the top-line takeaways are not good for the gun-rights group's current and former leadership. The jury determined the NRA failed to properly safeguard its charitable assets or protect numerous whistle-blowers. It also found Wayne LaPierre diverted millions of dollars worth of NRA funds toward his personal expenses, which he will likely be forced to pay back. The ruling leaves the nation's largest gun group facing down the potential that Judge Joel Cohen could appoint financial and compliance overseers. That could wipe out the leadership that's taken the NRA down this road in the first place. For the former leaders, such as LaPierre and once-treasurer Woody Phillips, they face the potential of bankruptcy as the jury found they collectively owe upwards of $6 million to the members they stole from. Plus, lawyer Anna Barvir-Boone explains why a new step in the California gun case she's working on could signal a change of course for the Ninth Circuit. There's reason to think gun-rights cases could face less onerous legal fights on appeal in the future in the nation's most liberal circuit. Special Guest: Anna Barvir-Boone.

This week, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman interviews me about what it was like in the courtroom as New York's civil trial against the NRA and its leaders reached closing arguments. Thanks to the support of Reload Members, I've been able to cover much of the case from inside the Manhattan court where it's happening. This is vital because there is no live stream of the proceedings and the transcripts aren't made available until well after the events of the day, if at all. So, spending the resources to be up there is vital to understanding what is actually happening in a case that will affect the future of the nation's largest gun-rights group, which has received only modest coverage from major media outlets. Jake asked me about how the closing arguments went. I did my best to summarize what the NRA, Wayne LaPierre, the group's top lawyer, and its former treasurer put up as their defense. And how the office of Attorney General Letitia James tried to rebut those arguments. I did my best to explain, but the answer went on for a while, and I wasn't able to hit every point. I probably could have talked for another several hours on how the case unfolded over the course of six weeks or even just the closing arguments, which went on for eight hours. Jake also asked me to predict the outcome of the case based on everything I saw in court. I don't think it's possible to predict exactly how the jury will rule on the many, many questions they have to resolve. But I did think significant parts of the jury instructions make an overall win for the NRA, LaPierre, and others very difficult to imagine. After going over my time at the NRA trial, we discussed my on-the-ground experience during Donald Trump's speech at the Great American Outdoor Show. The rally took place in Pennsylvania, a key state in what's looking like an inevitable rematch between Trump and President Joe Biden. But it wasn't as newsworthy as I'd expected it to be since the NRA didn't actually announce its endorsement of Trump. Instead, it was much more akin to a normal Trump rally. Trump made some specific promises about gun policy, but none of them were new.  The lack of an endorsement felt especially odd since the political speech was a new component of the event, and no other politician was invited, including Trump's remaining Republican opponent, Nikki Haley. And the speech was run like a rally, with the NRA repeatedly heaping praise on Trump and calling for him to be president again. The rally also featured moments where the crowd was encouraged to yell their shared disdain at the media in the room in what has been a staple of Trump rallies for years but which also fell more ominous after the events of January 6th. The crowd was energetic at points, cheering and laughing at Trump's now-familiar routine. But they also quieted down through long stretches of his stream-of-consciousness asides and the venue that started nearly full of Trump supporters was about half empty by the time he wrapped up an hour and 15 minutes after he'd arrived. Plus, I interviewed Jake about what happened to the rebranded effort to ban AR-15s and other guns in New Mexico.

This week, we're looking ahead to the end of the NRA's corruption trial that's set to arrive on Friday. To better understand exactly what's at stake in the case, I've brought on an expert in not just non-profit law but New York non-profit law. Pace University Law Professor James Fishman, who has written extensively on the subject, joins the show to give us some expert insight into the facts of the case and the potential outcomes. He provides an overview of what to expect once the case ends. Fishman argued the admitted misappropriation of funds by current and former NRA leadership, especially former CEO Wayne LaPierre, put the group in serious legal jeopardy. He also dismissed many of the arguments the group and its leadership have used in the case thus far. He painted a dim picture of the group's chances for success in the case. Fishman did admit New York Attorney General Letitia James (D.) erred when describing the NRA as a "terrorist organization" during her campaign. But he explained the NRA's repeated attempts to use her comments as a defense in the case failed because the AG built her case around provable instances of corruption and misappropriation of funds that have left the NRA in dire straights. He argued those facts would weigh more on the judge and jury than the AG's rhetoric. As for the likely outcome, Fishman said the NRA will likely end up with a court-appointed overseer in charge of vetting its financial decisions. He said the overseer could also force reform on the group's 76-member board and its opaque bylaws. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss the Hawaiian Supreme Court ruling putting the "Spirit of Aloha" above gun rights. Special Guest: James Fishman.

This week, we're changing pace a little bit. We tend to interview subject matter experts on whatever the biggest story of the week is. But with the election in full swing, I want to make sure we're paying attention to that. And I think it's especially important to take a look at those gun owners who don't necessarily fit into traditional partisan boxes, especially since that group appears to have grown over the past several years. That's why when I saw a short but interesting profile of Ben Beauchemin in a New York Times report during the lead-up to the New Hampshire primary, I thought it would be good to interview him. Luckily, he agreed to come on.  Ben owns a gun shop and custom AR-building business in New Hampshire, which might seem like a pretty easy indicator of his politics. But his beliefs don't necessarily line up perfectly with either party. And he's grown increasingly disillusioned with the political choices they offer up. He said it would be difficult for him to vote for President Joe Biden because of his pursuit of new gun restrictions. But he'd also have trouble voting for former president Donald Trump for a myriad of other reasons. And he isn't sold on former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley either. Ben also said he's been unhappy with the gun-rights movement in recent years. And he gave his view of how the industry has handled the shift toward gun owners with different backgrounds and beliefs, like himself. Plus, I give my firsthand report of what it was like inside the NRA's corruption trial up in New York City this week.

The NRA's corruption trial carried on last week with Wayne LaPierre taking the stand for the first time. So, I invited one of the best gunwriters in the country on the show to talk about it. Cam Edwards is not only the editor of Bearing Arms, but he's a former NRA News and NRATV host. That means he worked for Ackerman McQueen, which is the contractor at the center of the NRA corruption allegations. That gave him some special insight into how the relationship between the two sides. Cam was willing to be very candid about what he saw during his years at the organization. He said sometimes there were signs of outrageous spending, but he said those in the lower levels of each side didn't know about the kind of mismanagement LaPierre and others had admitted to in court. He decried the way high-level executives wasted NRA money on their own personal expenses. He pointed to former NRA CFO Woody Philips using the group's funds to commute from Texas to Virginia. He said he would often forgo reimbursement for legitimate business expenses when working on behalf of the NRA and never dreamed of using NRA funds for his commute after he moved several hours from the office he broadcast from. Cam said he knew many Ackerman and NRA employees who were as reserved in their expense accounting as he was because they believed in the group's mission. He said they also understood that the bulk of the NRA's money came from regular members giving money that was often a not insignificant part of their family budgets. He argued the corruption that ran rampant at the NRA was unacceptable and things need to change. But he also said the NRA is one of the most important institutions in the gun-rights movement and needs to be saved. Plus, I talk about my time at SHOT Show with Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and the effect of the Biden Administration's pause on gun exports. Special Guest: Cam Edwards.

This week, we are discussing a number of legal developments. So, we've got one of the preeminent pro-gun legal minds on the show. Mark W. Smith, host of the Four Boxes Diner and member of the Supreme Court bar, joins me to talk about some complicated but fascinating cases. First and foremost, Smith explains why the case against Maryland's "assault weapons" ban has been moved on to be heard before the full Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals without the lower court panel that already held arguments issuing any decision. Smith predicted that might happen. He said it was done to try and delay the case further. He argued the intent was to keep the Supreme Court from getting ahold of the case and potentially overturning the ban. Smith said that tactic was becoming more common among liberal-leaning courts in the wake of the Supreme Court's landmark Bruen decision. But he also explained the Court may take up an AR ban case sooner than later anyway. He said it doesn't even necessarily need a circuit split, which is unlikely to happen anytime soon, to weigh in on the case. Smith also weighed in on the Department of Justice's surprising brief in the NRA's First Amendment case at the Supreme Court. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about how a board member's letter brought the NRA's internal turmoil back out into the open. Special Guest: Mark W. Smith.

The National Rifle Association's corruption trial in New York began this week, and we have the first witness called in the case on the show with us. Rocky Marshall is a former NRA board member and the first to receive votes for executive vice president against Wayne LaPierre in decades. He has also been a vocal critic of LaPierre, other key members of leadership, and outside counsel Bill Brewer. He blames their mismanagement and misconduct for the NRA's current downward spiral. Marshall laid out the questions he was asked during his testimony. The questions were wide-ranging, and he was on the stand for over an hour. He explained his view of where the prosecution is going as well as where the NRA's defense is headed. He also talked about his decision to run for the board again. He's qualified for the ballot alongside three other reform candidates. Marshall said people are underestimating how important the NRA is to the gun-rights movement and argued it's still possible to fix things from the inside. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss the whiplash Californians must feel as gun carry was made lawful again by a federal court ruling. Special Guest: Rocky Marshall.

This week, we're discussing some of the incongruities that make it so difficult for gun-rights advocates to beat new gun restrictions even after the Supreme Court's Bruen ruling. To do that, I got a leading Second Amendment scholar to join the show. Robert Leider, an associate professor at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia School of Law, explains why even broad gun restrictions continue to make it into law, and challenges have been less successful than many might have expected. He lays out the "asymmetry of legal liability" at the center of the dynamic. Leider argues lawmakers, like the ones behind California's expansive new "gun-free" zones, are engaging in what he calls "loopholing." He said they are attempting to disregard the Supreme Court's purpose in Bruen by finding ways to create the same effect as the laws it declared unconstitutional by using slightly different tactics. He argued there are some ways to address this beyond normal challenges, such as removing qualified immunity protections for those enforcing the new laws. But he also said gun-rights advocates are relying too much on court action in their push against new restrictions. Enforcement of California's new law has been barred again since we recorded the show, but Leider argued the outcome of the fight over the preliminary injunction is not nearly as important as people make it out to be. Plus, I explain the implications of Wayne LaPierre stepping down as head of the NRA. Special Guest: Robert Leider.

This week, we're looking at a federal judge's ruling against the Golden State's latest "gun-free zones." So, we've got one of the lawyers who won the case on to explain it. Kostas Moros, who represented the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA), joins the show to recount his arguments and the judge's decision. The decision was a total victory for Moros and the plaintiffs. The judge enjoined all of the challenged sensitive places restrictions. He even went a bit beyond what the plaintiffs asked for and struck down the parking lot ban associated with many of those places. Moros argues the judge, in contrast with an opposing decision out of the Second Circuit on a similar New York law, used the proper analysis when approaching the question of where guns can be banned by default. He said many of the locations existed at the time of the Founding but had no such bans. Under the Supreme Court's Bruen decision, he said that means the modern regulation can't stand. The judge didn't stay his order. However, the day after we recorded the podcast, an appeals panel did. So, California's law will go into effect on January 1st as the case against it continues to unfold. But Moros said he and CRPA will keep fighting it as long as necessary to win. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss our exclusive story on how Hawaiians are effectively barred from buying guns for the next few weeks. Special Guest: Kostas Moros.

This week's episode is a bit different than normal. I'm speaking with Mike Spies from The Trace about his latest article. But, unlike a regular episode, this story impacts me personally. The subject of Mike's piece was Bob Owens. Bob was a gun-rights writer, but, more importantly, he was also a good friend of mine. Unfortunately, like many other Americans, Bob took his life several years ago. Mike agreed to come on the podcast to talk about Bob and gun suicide. It was honestly a difficult conversation to have. But I think we were able to be frank, and I believe it was constructive. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss the leaked document we published showing the Biden Admin's plan to curtail gun exports. Special Guest: Mike Spies.

This week, we're taking a look at record gun sales from a different point of view. The spike in new gun owners seen from 2020 through 2022 is one we've spent a lot of time examining because it's very likely to have a significant impact on American society, culture, and politics. Gun owners generally see the addition of millions more Americans to their ranks as a positive thing, even while understanding uncertainty is what likely drove many of them to the store. But Discourse Magazine editor David Masci wrote a piece recently noting the straightforward problem of high gun sales in an era where sales have come to serve as a kind of chaos meter. He joins the show to discuss the concerning idea that more people are buying guns because more people are feeling insecure in America. He argued that even if you believe in gun rights, as he does, that trend should be worrying. We have a discussion about this particular implication of the recent shift in gun culture from a hunting-first mindset to a self-defense one. And we talk about the overarching factors that have led American society to this point, both good and bad. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I examine the Supreme Court's recent refusal to grant emergency relief to gun-rights plaintiffs. Special Guest: David Masci.