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.
This week, we saw the nation's largest state effectively ban the nation's most popular handgun brand.
California Governor Gavin Newsom quietly signed the "Glock ban" into law with little fanfare, but its impact could speak volumes. That's what Cam Edwards of Bearing Arms argued on the show.
He explained that while the law doesn't directly name Glock, and it doesn't appear to implicate later pistol models from the company, it serves as an effective ban on the brand in the Golden State. That's because another California pistol ban, the handgun roster, already makes it impossible for most civilians to purchase new model Glocks. And the latest law targets the internal mechanism that the older generation Glocks are built around.
Cam acknowledged that "Glock switches," which illegally convert the semi-auto pistols to be capable of full-auto fire, have become increasingly popular in recent years. However, he argued that isn't Glock's fault and questioned both the sincerity of California lawmakers' concerns and the idea that Glocks are especially susceptible to illegal conversion attempts. He said that blaming Glock for criminals illegally modifying their guns without their cooperation or consent is wrong and warned that tactic is likely to be replicated against other popular firearm brands or models in the near future.
Special Guest: Cam Edwards.
Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss the ways in which the federal government's ongoing shutdown is impacting key functions that gun-rights advocates care about, drawing fresh criticism of the Trump administration. We also talk about a recent ruling out of the Second Circuit where a three-judge panel of all Trump-appointed judges ruled that ammunition sales aren't protected by the Second Amendment.
We are now more than a month out from the end of President Donald Trump's federal takeover of Washington, DC's police department and the deployment of federal troops and agents. We have some preliminary crime data to look at and try to judge the effect of the controversial move.
Who better to do that than Jeff Asher of AH Datalytics? He's our go-to source for crime data analysis for good reason. He has been tracking real-time insights for years, and he just wrote a deep dive into the early crime data coming out of DC from multiple sources.
Asher said the data shows some noticeable changes over the course of the takeover. Although, he also said the Metropolitan Police Department's method of using year-to-date comparisons is misleading. And many key crime areas saw little or no change.
He said one of the big challenges in judging the crime stats comes from the fact that DC's crime was already declining in most notable areas before the takeover happened. Asher argued that makes it especially difficult to suss out whether the year-to-date declines some areas saw are actually the result of armed National Guard members or ATF agents roaming the streets of DC. Still, he said shootings and carjackings in particular appeared to experience a significant, though not massive, drop beyond what you'd expect from the previous rate of decline.
Special Guest: Jeff Asher.
Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I break down the lack of consensus among prominent Second Amendment scholars on why the Supreme Court decided to take up its latest gun carry case and how it is likely to rule on the question. We also discuss their thoughts on why the Court chose not to weigh in on the correct historical era for conducting its text, history, and tradition test.
This week, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a first-of-its-kind civil rights lawsuit against the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department over gun-carry permitting delays.
So, we have a man at the center of the case on the show to discuss it. Kostas Moros is a gun-rights lawyer who works at the Second Amendment Foundation, which is involved in a private suit against the department. He has also been directly impacted by the permitting process, with his own permit having expired as he waits for the department to process his renewal.
He also helped inspire the federal lawsuit. After he publicly advocated for the DOJ to pursue a pattern and practice investigation of the Sheriff's permitting process, the department reached out to him before following through.
He said the DOJ's suit is largely focused on the same claims as the private one, but he thinks it is more than a duplicative effort. He noted the DOJ has more power, prestige, and potential resources than any gun-rights group. He argued DOJ can, and did in this case, require localities to hand over important statistics and documents. They can also obtain a consent decree and oversee the department's permitting process.
Moros dismissed the Sheriff's Department's defenses for the delays. He argued funding or staffing issues aren't a viable excuse for years-long delays, especially when other counties don't have similar problems. Still, he said LA is not the only place the DOJ should consider filing this kind of suit, and he hopes this one is just a precursor to many others.
Special Guest: Kostas Moros.
Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about the Supreme Court announcing its decision to hear a new Second Amendment case dealing with Hawaii's so-called Vampire Rule for gun carry this upcoming term. We also talk about the practical impact its decision last term related to gunmaker liability protections is having in the lower courts thus far. Finally, we cover the Trump administration's ongoing rollback of a Biden-era restriction on gun exports, as well as the DOJ's new lawsuit against Los Angeles over concealed carry permits.
This week, we're looking at potential fallout for gun owners from an unexpected area: immigration.
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) issued a stay on an emergency basis in Noem v. Perdomo. Justice Brett Kavanaugh's statement in that case inspired UC Law Professor Rory Little to write a piece for SCOTUSblog on its potential implications in areas beyond immigration enforcement, including firearms law. He joins the show to elaborate on why he finds Kavanaugh's reasoning dangerous.
Little said Kavanaugh's holding that immigration agents could use a person's apparent race, accent, and location as justification to detain them is troubling. He argued the idea that agents should be able to involuntarily stop and question somebody based on the idea that some percentage of similarly situated people may have broken the law could be turned on all sorts of people. He used gun shows as a prime example, arguing they primarily attract white men and can sometimes be the site of illegal sales.
He argued an administration taking an aggressive approach to federal gun law enforcement could use Kavanaugh's logic to detain and question everyone at a gun show in hopes of catching the few that may be breaking the law. Little said that moving from a probable cause standard for detentions that relies on individualized suspicion to one based on demographics or probabilities would have far-reaching consequences for all sorts of Americans. He argued it's difficult to see how Kavanaugh's logic could be contained to immigration either, though he also emphasized Perdomo is still at a preliminary stage and other members of the majority haven't fully articulated their view on the matter.
Special Guest: Rory Little.
Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss a recent ruling out of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld New York's "sensitive places" restrictions for licensed gun carriers. We also cover a Ninth Circuit ruling that sided with a Montana gun owner fighting against a charge for carrying a shotgun in a school zone. Finally, we talk about a new letter campaign from a coalition of gun rights groups seeking a commitment from major banks that they will no longer discriminate against the firearms industry.
This week, we have another episode on our nation's recent struggles with horrendous violence. However, this time we're looking at potential solutions to that struggle.
That's why we have Let's Talk to Them director Jordan Estrada back on the show. His organization attempts to adapt lessons from research into the causes of mass shootings, such as work from The Violence Project, and apply them to real-world efforts. It tries to funnel those who are experiencing a potentially violent mental health spiral toward resources that can off ramp them from the path of violence.
Estrada said his group believes they can apply similar techniques to disuade potential assassins from carrying out attacks, too. He said the two violent phenomena share a number of similarities. But he also noted there are some differences as well.
That's why he and Let's Talk to Them are currently working on securing funding for a scientific study to better understand how prevalent mass shooting and assassination ideation really are among Americans. Then, they also want to better understand the sorts of arguments that might convince people considering those forms of violence not to go through with it.
Using the lessons learned from that research, Estrada said his group plans to further update the programs it's already using to successfully off-ramp potential shooters across the country.
Special Guest: Jordan Estrada.
Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I provide an update in our attempt to gain clarity from the DC Metropolitan Police Department regarding the nature of its enforcement of the city's strict gun control laws during Trump's federal takeover. We also discuss the California legislature's passage of a first-in-the-nation ban on the sale of Glock handguns in a bid to crack down on illegal machine guns.