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.

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss this week's announcement by President Trump of his nomination of career law enforcement officer Robert Cekada to direct the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. We cover what we know about Cekada's background, how the gun industry is reacting to his nomination, and what to watch for as his nomination moves forward.

This week, we're taking a close look at what's going on with the National Rifle Association (NRA).

The NRA was swamped by its rivals in the gun debate during the 2025 elections just as it was announcing a major restructuring effort that featured dozens of staff furloughs. To provide insight into the group's plans, we've brought on NRA board member Amanda Suffecool. She is a member of the internal reform movement and now sits on the board's Finance Committee.

Suffecool said she is confident that reformers are in full control of the NRA and have a specific plan for its future. She argued the restructuring is necessary to put the NRA on a realistic path to resurgence. Suffecool noted the NRA has spent years running deficits under the old leadership, and the cuts to staff and operations under the new plan will bring the group's budget back into the black. She said that would enable them to better compete down the line rather than face potential bankruptcy.

She argued that the reforms she and other members of the new NRA leadership have implemented will bring the group up to modern standards. Suffecool said that while the NRA is reducing the frequency of its paper magazines, it's also expanding its digital offerings. She said it is shifting its fundraising and public relations approach to match what works in 2025, rather than sticking with older methods.

Special Guest: Amanda Suffecool.

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss the Connecticut Attorney General's new lawsuit threat against Ruger if the company doesn't agree to redesign its popular RXM pistol. We talk about how that demand came the same week that gun-control advocates were able to pierce the PLCAA in a separate lawsuit against the company that seeks to hold it responsible for the 2021 Boulder shooting.

This week, we're taking a closer look at US v. Hemani.

Last week, we had Second Amendment scholar David Kopel on to discuss the big picture of the upcoming Supreme Court term. The week before that, we had gun-rights lawyer Alan Beck on the show to discuss his Supreme Court case, Wolford v. Lopez.  Now, we're looking at the other Second Amendment case with a man who has followed the issue at its center: Reason Magazine's Jacob Sullum.

That issue? Marijuana users possessing firearms.

Sullum explained that the federal ban on drug users owning guns potentially impacts millions of Americans. He noted it is rarely actually enforced, but he said the possibility hangs over people in nearly 40 states. He argued that's why Hemani's case could have huge implications nationwide.

However, he noted Hemani's case is more complicated than a straightforward weed and guns prosecution. Even though the charge is only related to Hemani's marijuana use, Sullum said the government has accused him of much worse--including terror-related crimes. He said the crossover between drugs and guns could scramble the usual dynamics of the Court, but that's no guarantee.

Special Guest: Jacob Sullum.

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I recap the results of the off-year elections this past week, which saw Democratic candidates and gun-control ballot measures alike win big. We discuss what that might portend for likely changes in gun policy moving forward. We also cover Everytown's latest attempt to replicate its success in pressuring Glock to redesign its handguns, this time by going after Ruger.

This week, we're taking a big-picture view of the Supreme Court's upcoming slate of Second Amendment cases.

That's because this slate will be the biggest yet. Now, sure, that still only means they have two Second Amendment claims to consider. But that's more than ever before, and it comes just a few months after many gun-rights activists thought the Court was wavering on the deciding key cases.

So, to discuss what we should make of this Supreme Court term, we've got Independence Institute research director David Kopel back on the show. He is one of the leading scholars in the gun-rights movement, and his work helped develop and legitimize the individual right theory of the Second Amendment. He has been cited in numerous Supreme Court gun opinions and is an odd-on favorite to be quoted again this year.

Kopel argued it is notable that the Supreme Court is taking up more Second Amendment cases than ever before. He said there are outcomes that could dramatically alter the legal landscape for gun-carry or people who smoke marijuana and own guns. However, he also noted that narrow rulings could still alter the course of Second Amendment caselaw, given the Court's infrequent involvement in the issue to date.

Kopel said every word a Supreme Court justice utters or writes in the course of deciding these two cases will be pored over by the lower courts for years to come.

Special Guest: David Kopel.

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss the country's largest gun-control group taking a victory lap after Glock announced changes to the design of its popular pistols. We talk about the reputational risks for Glock in appearing to bow to pressure from gun-control groups and progressive lawmakers. We also cover a recent court ruling out of Florida where a state judge struck down a law setting 21 as the minimum age to legally carry a handgun.

The Supreme Court has taken a record number of Second Amendment cases this term.

Sure, that number is only two. But that's still a major development for a Court that's taken fewer than ten Second Amendment cases in its entire history. One of those chosen few cases is now Wolford v. Lopez, a challenge to Hawaii requiring licensed gun carriers to get explicit permission before entering publicly accessible private property--including stores or restaurants.

Alan Beck is the gun-rights lawyer behind that suit. He'll be arguing it at the Supreme Court. And he's the guest on this week's show.

Beck explains how Hawaii's law swaps the default presumption from one where gun carriers are generally allowed to carry into one where they aren't. He claimed the change has made it nearly impossible to legally carry in public. He then outlined his plan for convincing the justices that the law is out of line with the historical tradition of gun regulation in America, as the Court's current Second Amendment test requires.

Special Guest: Alan Beck.

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss the Supreme Court agreeing to hear multiple Second Amendment cases in the same term for the first time in history. We cover the details of its latest case, related to the federal gun ban for marijuana users, and explain why it appears that the DOJ was able to maneuver the case to secure a favorable ruling from the justices. Additionally, we talk about Glock's decision to completely redesign its famous pistols in the face of lawsuits and a new state ban.