The Weekly Reload Podcast

Stephen Gutowski

A podcast from The Reload that offers sober, serious firearms reporting and analysis. It focuses on gun policy, politics, and culture. Tune in to hear from Reload Founder Stephen Gutowski and special guests from across the gun world each week.

  1. 2d ago

    How Far Does the Injunction Against the National Firearms Act Extend? (Ft. SAF's Kostas Moros)

    This week, we're diving back into the injunction against enforcement of wide swaths of the National Firearms Act (NFA). That's because, in a bit of a surprise move, the Department of Justice (DOJ) declined to appeal the injunction before the stay on it expired. That led to a symbolic sale of an unregistered silencer between several of the named plaintiffs in the case early Thursday morning. But it has also created a lot of new questions about exactly who and what is covered by the injunction. To try and bring some clarity to the issue, we've got gun-rights lawyer and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) legal research director Kostas Moros back on the show. SAF is a named plaintiff in a similar case in the Eighth Circuit, and its sister organization, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, is a plaintiff in the Texas case. Kostas said the injunction is fairly complex and nobody has all the answers for every potential eventuality. However, he also said that the ruling appears to be very expansive. He said it enjoins enforcement of many of the NFA regulations associated with silencers, short barrel rifles, short barrel shotguns, and the "any other weapon" category. He said it also covers all named plaintiffs, including all of their members and customers. And it covers both current and future members and customers. Kostas noted there are a number of caveats, though. For instance, he said it doesn't have any impact on state laws, and many of those could still trip people up. He also said it doesn't cover the entire NFA or even all of the NFA's regulations on the impacted items. He argued there's a lot still left to figure out, and the final answers for many of the open questions will have to come from the DOJ and ATF. Kostas also discussed the legal strategy at play, including what he'd like to see the DOJ do with a potential appeal and how vulnerable the current legal situation may be. Special Guest: Kostas Moros.

  2. Aug 10

    How Gun-Rights Advocates Convinced a Judge the National Firearms Act is Unconstitutional (Ft. FRAC's Travis White)

    This week, we're taking a close look at a federal judge's decision to strike down a wide swath of National Firearms Act (NFA) regulations. To do that, we have one of the plaintiffs in the case. Travis White is the President of the Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition (FRAC), which filed suit against the NFA the same day the federal government officially slashed a number of NFA taxes to $0. He said that's what made the NFA vulnerable to a challenge, at least the provisions that regulate silencers, short-barrel rifles and shotguns, and what the law calls "any other weapons." US District Judge James Wesley Hendrix agreed. He ruled that the NFA sections whose taxes were eliminated also lost their constitutional justification. White said the judge was persuaded by the plaintiffs' argument that the NFA is, at its heart, an exercise of Congress's taxing power and its provisions can only stand if they are in furtherance of collecting revenue. White said Hendrix agreed with FRAC that a $0 tax can't justify imposing registration, fingerprinting, and various other requirements to prove it has been paid. White argued that if a tax doesn't even try to raise funds, then it can't be considered a tax. Hendrix was persuaded. But that didn't end the inquiry. White said the judge also determined the remaining NFA taxes on machineguns or gun makers don't mean the regulations on the untaxed items can stand. He also brushed aside a justification based on the Necessary and Proper Clause. And he concluded the NFA doesn't fit under the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce either. Special Guest: Travis White.

  3. Aug 3

    A Pro-Gun Critique of the SCOTUS Second Amendment Test (Ft. GMU Professor Ilya Somin)

    We've looked at the Supreme Court's upcoming Second Amendment case against AR-15 bans with the lawyer who helped craft the Court's view of gun rights and with a professor who is a prominent critic of that view from the left. This week, we're doing the same with a pro-gun critic of the Court's test. That critic is Cato Institute scholar and George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin. Ever since the Supreme Court handed down a new Second Amendment test in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, most gun-rights advocates have been happy with the outcome of the cases where the Court has applied it. But there is a contingent of pro-gun lawyers and professors who've disputed whether it's a good precedent. Somin argued that Bruen's reliance on history and tradition creates a lot of grey areas in the law. He said it is "too flabby" as it stands now, and leaves too much wiggle room for judges to impose their own preferences. He noted that liberal critics of the Bruen test have some valid critiques, but where they worry the test will be used to restrict government action, he worries it will be used to restrict Second Amendment rights. He said he's largely agreed with the outcome of the most recent Second Amendment cases at the Supreme Court, but worried what might come in future cases--especially if the balance of the Court moves left. Somin argued for what he considers a more straightforward test based around the original meaning of the Second Amendment. He argued history could inform that meaning, but he said that the existence of historical laws that contradict that meaning shouldn't mean those laws take precedence over the meaning itself. Special Guest: Ilya Somin.

  4. Jul 27

    AR-15s Return to Virginia Shelves (Ft. VCDL's Phil Van Cleave)

    This week, AR-15s returned to the shelves of gun stores in the Old Dominion. Despite being removed about three weeks ago amid a murky legal situation, the popular rifles are back on sale after gun-rights activists secured a statewide injunction against the state's "assault firearms" ban. So, we have one of those activists on the show this week to update us on the legal situation. That is Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) president Philip Van Cleave. Van Cleave said VCDL, the other gun-rights groups, and the gun industry's trade group all agree that AR-15 sales are now legal. He said VCDL believes that an injunction would be pointless if people weren't allowed to carry out the activities that are impacted. He said he's heard from many stores and individuals that they are indeed back to buying and selling ARs. However, Van Cleave noted that not everyone has been willing to restart sales. He said there are some lingering concerns about what could happen if the injunction is overturned down the line and the law goes back into effect. Still, he argued there's little reason to think anyone would pursue people for buying or selling ARs while the law is enjoined. He went on to argue the new AR-15 ban case at the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) means Virginia's law is doomed one way or the other. He believes SCOTUS will strike down the bans, but he said that could take another year. So, VCDL is pushing forward with the state-level cases against the law, and Van Cleave said he's hoping to get a final ruling there before SCOTUS acts. Van Cleave agreed that the Virginia Supreme Court is harder to read. But he said he's confident in VCDL's case, and noted Attorney General Jay Jones (D.) has already failed on several fronts in defending the law. Special Guest: Philip Van Cleave.

4.8
out of 5
88 Ratings

About

A podcast from The Reload that offers sober, serious firearms reporting and analysis. It focuses on gun policy, politics, and culture. Tune in to hear from Reload Founder Stephen Gutowski and special guests from across the gun world each week.