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.

Reload Founder Stephen Gutowski details the latest on gun sales spiking in Colorado ahead of the state's new permit-to-purchase law going into effect. He also explains the Department of Justice's new case against Montgomery County, Maryland's broad "gun-free zone" restrictions and a dueling set of rulings on foster parents and gun storage requirements. Then he interviews David from The Humble Marksman on why he believes the industry's latest handgun trend may be running out of steam and what might come next.

Sources:
https://thereload.com/colorado-gun-sales-spike-250-percent-ahead-of-ar-15-restrictions-as-virginias-surge-fades/
https://thereload.com/doj-sues-maryland-county-over-expansive-gun-free-zones/
https://thereload.com/courts-issue-dueling-decisions-on-foster-parents-and-guns/
https://youtu.be/CKqK0FSSfRg?si=d9Tac9FWlTOIxO8T

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.

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss a sweeping new ruling out of Connecticut, where a federal judge upheld the state's handgun restrictions for 18-20-year-olds shortly after the Supreme Court declined to address the issue. We also cover a new stay order in the state litigation against Virginia's AR-15 ban which will keep the ban blocked until the Supreme Court hands down its "assault weapon" ban decision.

Stories:
-https://thereload.com/district-judge-upholds-federal-connecticut-under-21-handgun-restrictions/
-https://thereload.com/new-orders-keep-virginia-ar-15-sales-ban-on-hold-until-scotus-ruling/
-https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/07/27/virginia-assault-weapons-ban-could-have-spiked-gun-sales/

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.

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I cover a new ruling out of the First Circuit Court of Appeals upholding Massachusetts' ban on AR-15s and similar rifles. Meanwhile, we discuss the fact that the same weapons are now back on sale in Virginia after a state court injunction against the Commonwealth's similar ban took effect.

Stories:
-https://thereload.com/first-circuit-upholds-massachusetts-assault-weapons-ban/
-https://thereload.com/ar-15s-return-to-virginia-shelves-as-injunction-takes-effect/
-https://thereload.com/maine-democrat-set-to-replace-platner-moves-party-left-on-guns-in-key-senate-race/
-https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/22/style/gun-club-los-angeles.html

This week, we're looking back at the Supreme Court case that established the "common use" standard likely to play a major role in its new AR-15 case.

That case is 1939's US v. Miller, and we have a guest with brand-new information that unsettles the official story of its namesake. Tulane law professor Brian Frye wrote the definitive account of Miller back in 2008, which ended up heavily influencing the Supreme Court's opinion in 2009's DC v. Heller. But, nearly 20 years later, he says the police and newspaper accounts about Jack Miller's life are now in dispute.

Frye recounts the original narrative of the case, which reads like something out of a gangster movie. Miller was accused of being involved in multiple bank robberies, including a simultaneous heist at two Oklahoma banks. He then turned state's evidence and was later murdered by aggrieved gangsters.

In between that time, he was arrested under the National Firearms Act (NFA) for transporting an unregistered sawed-off shotgun across state lines. An enterprising judge, who'd backed federal gun control as a congressman, then decided to use his prosecution as a test case for the NFA's constitutionality. In a truncated Supreme Court case that saw no oral arguments, that setup paid off with the High Court, in a fairly narrow ruling, determining that short-barreled shotguns aren't protected by the Second Amendment (or, at least, it didn't have evidence to say they are).

It did, however, mention that the Second Amendment would protect guns that are in "common use." And that standard was something the 2009 Court grabbed onto in DC v. Heller, which is likely to play a substantial role in the 2026 Court's forthcoming AR-15 case.

But the current understanding of Miller is deeply flawed, according to Frye. After his 2008 paper on the case garnered widespread attention, Frye said he heard from Jack Miller's surviving family members. And they had a very different version of what happened.

Instead of being a committed career criminal, Miller's great-granddaughter said he was a persecuted minority living in the shadow of the infamous Tulsa Massacre, who was forced into at least some of the crimes he was involved with. He said he's currently working on a new paper that details the family's claims alongside other evidence, revealing a clearer picture of the story behind the Supreme Court case.

Frye said that the local police singled out Miller for his Cherokee background and that they were involved in the bank robberies. He said corrupt police may even have been involved in his arrest for violating the NFA and in his eventual murder.

He acknowledged that the family, like the police and papers from the period, has motivation to tell Miller's story a certain way. But he said he believed Miller's great-granddaughter is credible. Still, he noted they are still working on a final draft of the paper.

Special Guest: Brian Frye.

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss a federal judge's recent rejection of the Justice Department's request for a TRO against California's ban on Glocks and other handguns deemed too easily convertible into illegal machineguns. We also cover a recent Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling upholding a criminal conviction for violating the federal gun ban for marijuana users despite the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Hemani.

Story links:
-https://thereload.com/judge-denies-doj-request-to-immediately-block-californias-glock-ban/
-https://thereload.com/analysis-do-the-dojs-second-amendment-lawsuits-have-a-fatal-flaw-member-exclusive/
-https://thereload.com/appeals-court-upholds-weed-and-guns-conviction-despite-recent-supreme-court-ruling/
-https://thereload.com/house-passes-bill-barring-gun-retail-tracking-codes/
-https://www.aol.com/articles/feds-drop-fight-keep-gun-214255000.html
-https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/national-international/ghost-gun-company-100m-death-teen/4050573/