Stephen Gutowski 0:00 The latest on President Biden's ATF. Plus I look at gun sales numbers and interview with David harsanyi. National Review that more on this week's episode of the weekly reload podcast. Unknown Speaker 0:14 I gave him poison, just for fun. All right, Stephen Gutowski 0:16 ladies and gentlemen, welcome to another episode of the weekly reload podcast. I'm your host, Stephen Gutowski, I'm also the founder of the reload calm. Before we begin, let me remind you that members get this episode a day early, that comes out with the member exclusive newsletter that you also get if you are a member that you do not get if you are not a member. So head over to the website and sign up today. But let me tell you about what we're going to be discussing this week on the show. First, I'll give you a little bit of news update about where things stand with President Biden's ATF nomination. The latest developments in that story, which has really been going nonstop all week. There's been just story after story on President Biden's nominee David Shipman. And then I'll give you a little update on gun sales as well. And then we'll have a nice, long interview with the National reviews David harsanyi. I think he makes some really interesting points about the whole situation with David Chapman. So we'll we'll get a nice deep dive into the latest on that front. It's kind of the biggest story in guns right now, at least in gun politics. And the reload is really right at the center of it all. So that's what I designed this place to be. It's what I designed the outlet to do is to break news stories that have a major impact. And that's what we're seeing on Capitol Hill this week. But let me start off by just giving you some of the latest news on David Shipman's nomination. This week we had republicans fire back at Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin over his rejection of their requests for a second hearing on Shipman Durbin had attacked the reload, specifically as a call it an anti gun safety website, which is really a rather ridiculous thing to say. I've had the founder of the website and I'm quite literally certified. gun safety instructor. So I know what he's obviously trying to say. Which is that I'm the reload is, you know, against gun control, which has obviously, gun control groups prefer now the term gun safety groups. And so I guess he's calling me as I you know, get new gun laws or new gun restrictions. And, you know, as an, obviously, a way of denouncing or detracting from my reporting. He did not offer up any sort of actual substantive response to the reloads report on David Shipman allegedly making racist remarks while he was in management at the Detroit office of the ATF back in the early 2000s. And Shipman has not responded himself. The White House has not responded. There's been no statement, no denial, no nothing really from from David Shipman, or the White House that nominated him, but Dick Durbin called the allegations baseless and implied that my sources were made up which of course, I stand 100% behind my sourcing the republicans they have called for a second hearing, of course, and they didn't like Durbin's response. They said that it was not something that responded to the actual substantive claims made, and that Durban should help them to get the Equal Opportunity, Equal Employment Opportunity complaints against David Shipman released so that they can examine what's in them because that's where their speed comes. So, we know that the complaints exists, both Chipman and Durbin have said that that's the case. Chipman has said that the complaints were resolved without any sort of punishment, but obviously that doesn't necessarily mean that he didn't make racially insensitive have comments or that he didn't do anything wrong? We don't know for sure, because we don't have the full story. All we know is that these complaints exist, and that there are agents, current and former agents who were aware of these complaints before news of them broke publicly, which obviously implies that they, the story itself is not completely fabricated. Instead, it's likely that there's a dispute between whoever made the complaint and shipment himself. And obviously, the reload has not been able to confirm the validity of the complaints. We just know what has been reported to this point what we've reported. So if you want to read more on that, the complaints and the situation that this is all stemming from you should go check it out on on the reload calm but this week, Republicans responded they it's a bit odd to be at the center of a fight between senators on the Capitol on Capitol Hill in the Judiciary Committee where they're by name. arguing over your reporting. Republicans cited cnn J. Jake Tapper, who is a early subscriber and supporter of the reload and my reporting as evidence that I'm a credible reporter, which is, I guess that's nice to hear. I certainly think that the reporting stands on its own merits. And my history, my decade long history of reporting in DC and on national, you know, gun politics speaks for itself. But, but obviously, I appreciate the support that I've gotten from a number of major media reporters like tapper and Jane cosin, of the New York Times and, and several, several other ones. And it's still very odd to be, obviously in the middle of this whole Firestorm. For reporting what sources told me obviously, I can't reveal their their names, they're concerned about retaliation, we're Chipman to become the director. Those to me are legitimate concerns. And so I agreed to allow them to speak without identifying them by name, for those reasons, you know, because they could have their lives up ended, where you know, their names to get out. And if they don't want to be, they don't want to take that risk than I respect their decision on that front. I always prefer for every source to be on record. But that's obviously not realistic all the time, because sometimes speaking on the record can be detrimental to a person's livelihood or even their life not in this situation, obviously, but in other situations dealing with you know, criminal activity. But regardless, that's the latest on Shipman. We'll get into a little more of it with David from from National Review in a moment here. But I also wanted to take a minute to just update you on the latest with the gun sales numbers we saw, just recently, two major gun companies report their earnings with Ruger and Winchester under the olan Corporation, umbrella, and their their profits and sales are through the roof, which is a bit surprising. You saw nearly 100% profit increase for Ruger, both in the period between January and June, and the period between April and June, when you compare 2021 to 2020, you see nearly 100% increase in their profits, which is really kind of shocking, because we've actually seen fewer FBI background checks on cat gun sales, which is how people usually gauge how many gun sales there have been in a given time period. And so obviously 2020 we saw this huge influx of new gun owners, and all time record gun sales. But now in 2021, you're seeing those numbers slowed down a bit on the FBI side of things, the background check side of things, but Ruger and Winchester are both seeing remarkable increases in their profit margins while in their in their gross profit and their sales over that time period. So obviously, the market is still extremely strong for guns and ammunition. Winchester under olan mostly sells me But there hasn't been a slowdown, at least for some of these bigger the biggest brands out there. in sales, even though perhaps overall, we're starting to see a new trend where 2020 ones monthly numbers are our second place to 2020. Given all the motivating factors that were involved in, in 2020s, all time records, but I still, I still find it fascinating that these major publicly traded companies like Ruger and, and Winchester, because most gun companies are, are smaller and privately owned. So you don't get to see the details of their books necessarily, like you do with Ruger and Winchester and Smith and Wesson, the publicly traded companies, but these numbers were, frankly, pretty surprising to me. But that's the latest on on gun sale. So you can read more over the reload, certainly have a detailed look at the actual sales numbers and profits there. So and maybe some of the potential motivating factors, obviously politics plays a large role, oftentimes in the number of guns sold. But clearly, we've also seen concern for personal safety is another issue that drives sales or the concern about policing really, one way or the other, whether you're concerned that there's not enough police on the streets, or if you're concerned that the police are biased against you. Those are both reasons that people buy guns. And so that was a big part of the 2020 increase in sales you had riding, but you also had, obviously accusations of racial bias against police, that drove minorities to buy guns. So there was quite a lot going on last year. And that's some of that has obviously carried over into this year, maybe some of the political side has been heightened. With President Biden winning the election and attempting to institute a number of gun control policies, really through executive action, and trying to install a gun control activists and David Shipman, as the head of the ATF that the gun industry at the very least says that that's likely part of what's driving gun sales. And, you know, that could certainly be the case. But more on that over at the reload. And in addition, there's also a numbers piece where I look at the very latest on David shipments nomination, including a number of gun control groups now coming out publicly to attack the White House for not doing enough to get him confirmed, and how everything that's happened. And, you know, the response to it, how that all plays out in terms of the likelihood that he'll be confirmed. So you can head over and read that it's a members only piece. But I think there's a lot of insight there. You know, I wrote back in May, what was the likelihood then? And then I wrote just a few weeks ago, what, what's the likelihood now that his nomination has dragged out for a while? And now with everything that's going on? What are what are the real odds that he gets in. So if you're interested in my insight on that area, you should head over and check that out. And if you're a member, you got to be a member, of course, again, comes with lots of perks. So this is the only add for this whole podcast is that you go buy a membership, the reload is 100% reader funded, and does not take ad money from anyone else or any other kind of contract deals with that, that are off, you know, out of view that's 100%, funded by readers. So that's the only ad pitch you're going to get throughout this entire podcast. But now we're gonna head over to the segment where I talked to David, about David. So enjoy that one. All right, we're here with David harsanyi of the national reviews senior writer over there. David, can you tell us a little bit about yourself for any listeners who might not know who you are? David Harsanyi 14:24 Well, I'm a senior writer at National Review have been here since 2019. Before that, I was one of the original senior editors of the Federalists starting in 2013. And before that, you know, I had numerous jobs. But for a long time, I was a columnist at the Denver Post. So that's basically my professional resume. Stephen Gutowski 14:46 Right. And you've also you're also an author as well, right? David Harsanyi 14:48 Yeah, I've written a few books in one called first freedom, which is about sort of a history of gun culture in the United States. I wrote that in 2018. Stephen Gutowski 14:58 Yeah, and so you've done a lot of right Obviously about about guns are out. So it'd be probably a little weird for you to. But that's an interest of mine for sure. Yeah, yeah, you've been around, you've been writing about this. And today, I wanted to talk to you a little bit about David. Shipments nomination to run the ATF spend a lot of news with this lately. And, you know, the reload has been sort of at the center of a lot of it. So we talked about this similar topic with cam Edwards last week from bearing arms. But we've had some new developments this week, that I think are relevant and worth talking about. And I wanted to bring on somebody else who also has good insight into the political world when it comes to guns and what's going on in Washington, DC. So that's why I thought of you over at National Review. You know, you've written a lot on the topic, so I figured you would be a really good guest for this. And I guess we could maybe try to get people up to speed. A little bit on what's happened since last week. Obviously, we had the allegations that David shipment has made racist remarks in the past when he worked at ATF that was corroborated by sources that I found and published a week ago that that the stories exist, and that In addition, there are complaints against him filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity division over there. And those are underseal szymon has admitted they exist, but they haven't been released. And we don't know the details contained within those complaints other than what these allegations are. Now that created obviously a bit of a stir in DC. Republicans on the Judiciary Committee want a new hearing to investigate this. But we had Dick Durbin respond to that request from Republicans and essentially say no, and then effectively attacked me and the reload as an anti gun safety website, which is part of I guess, like a cabal to try and block Chipman by the gun lobby and so forth. But I think he called me far right. Which if anyone who's listened to this podcast before, I think, you know, you can judge for yourself on the content that I put out, but so right now we've we've got the Senate Judiciary Chairman Durbin, saying they will not do a new hearing didn't say anything about it, releasing the complaints. He also admitted that they exist, but again, didn't call for the release. And then you had Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary said on Wednesday that the White House is effectively standing behind him and his nomination. But you also had Politico reports that angus king of Maine is sort of the leading opposition, I guess, internally inside the Democratic Party against his confirmation that he's already told the White House that he would not vote for him. Although apparently the White House still believes he's perhaps persuadable so and then you you also had there was kind of a lot with Chipman has gone out recently, but you also had him. There were seven retired agents who came out and said that they did not want to see him confirmed because they didn't believe he had the temperament to run the agency and that is history of gun control advocacy. Could it be detrimental to the agency carrying out its mission, which is similar complaints to the ones that I had published by agents last week. And then you also had, it turns out that Shipman forgot to include a media appearance he had done on Chinese state television while while he was working for one of the gun control groups back in 2012, the end of 2012. And so he didn't disclose that where he was supposed to on his application. Are you sure what I'm sure was an innocent oversight? Yeah. So there's been a lot, a lot has happened. There's a lot going on with the chip nomination. I just wanted to get your take on on the whole situation now where it stands, and where do you think it's going? David Harsanyi 19:27 Well, I guess I'd start with saying that it makes sense that Democrats don't want to bring him back in front of a committee because he was just awful when he appeared in front of the senate committee. At first In fact, I think Didn't they fold they fold it in his his testimony with another nominee so that the senators only have I think, five minutes of questioning and he Yeah, Stephen Gutowski 19:48 yeah, they actually had him alongside like four other nominees. Oh, yeah. Like a, you know, a very quick hearing that he got. He's sort David Harsanyi 19:57 of snarky and sarcastic sometimes I think that doesn't play very well. I mean, I mean, I think it's fine. When you're a activist to see he was for many years that works fine on TV. That doesn't exactly work with senators. And I should say, you know, personally, I think that clearly is not temperamentally. You know, a good fit for this kind of job, but also professionally, I don't really understand what what in his resume lifts him to this sort of position. And, you know, ideologically as well, you know, I mean, he's, he's been an activist for a long time, it's the only reason he's, he's there. His mockery of gun owners, I think, is something you don't want in a in a law enforcement, you know, see from a law enforcement official, who needs to work not only with gun owner legal, you know, gun owners, but also, you know, gun owning, you know, groups that deal with gun owners hunting, whatever, you know, whatever, whoever the ATF deals with. So I think there's all of that to consider. But mostly, I'll be honest with you. And obviously, then there's all the things that you've reported, which, you know, if it were a Republican, not, you know, nominee for a law enforcement agency, you better believe that they would want to see that documentation. And really, there's no reason not to so. But my main problem with him is ideological. I mean, I think he's essentially a radical anti gun nut that he wants to ban guns in common use. He doesn't believe I don't believe you know, despite what he said, during the Senate, hearing that he people who tell her, you know, codifies the right individual right of gun owners, I just don't believe he believes that he works for organizations that don't believe that. So he doesn't believe in the law. Right. So I just don't think that's the right person to listen, you're gonna get someone I think, who is antagonistic towards, you know, from from, you know, from the gun gun owner view is going to be somewhat antagonistic to what most Second Amendment advocates like but I think that this is just far too, too much for for even moderate Democrats. I mean, I'm not sure we know what we're mentioned is going to go on it so or even cinema? I don't think so. Maybe we don't remember if she's chimed in. But so obviously, it's just not the right guy. for all those reasons, when you're looking at it from a gun ownership perspective, I think, yeah. Stephen Gutowski 22:20 Cinema hasn't I don't believe taking a public position yet. But so, from your point of view, do you think that he's still likely to get through the confirmation? I mean, the White House is definitely still pushing him. I guess they're scheduling meetings, according to Politico, with angus king, you know, to meet with a number of gun control activists and gun violence survivors, to try and flip his position to a Yes. Do you think they'll be successful? Well, how do you see this playing out based on you know, how some of these other nominees have gone? For Biden, up to this point? David Harsanyi 22:56 I don't know. I didn't make any predictions. But I think he's definitely flippable you know, with some emotionalism and some some victims, listen, I'm not demeaning with victims go through, but that has nothing to do with the things that David Shipman wants to do with gun owners. But that can work. You know, he hasn't publicly said it's just been reported, so he can still change his mind. So I mean, I wouldn't I could see it going either way. I think they want to sit on it for a while and just slowly pray. I mean, there's no rush. Isn't this only the second I think senate confirmed ATF director ever if he goes through, right, so they probably feel they can sit on it a while. And if they need to, it helps them bring up the gun issue, God forbid another mass shooting whatever, they can push it then. So I think that's probably how they view this. There's other things on the agenda that's more important to them. But I think Yeah, so I hopefully people keep the pressure on, obviously, you're doing a lot of reporting. There was also another story, I think, where he was on TV a few years back, I wrote about this, you know, saying that the First Amendment keeps getting in the way of helping us deal with violent gun owners stuff like that. So he's not a big fan of other constitutional amendments either. I think that that's not surprising considering is you know, somewhat at least from my perspective, authoritarian outlook on the world but he so I think if that kind of pressure continues and more things come forward or someone leaks what what the things he said to you or someone else, even though it doesn't seem like mainstream media is at all interested in pursuing that angle. Then it could sink his nomination, but you never know. Stephen Gutowski 24:31 Yeah, I think it's interesting. He's in a he's in an odd place. I think your take is actually pretty accurate that they don't feel necessarily rushed by this. And while King has apparently told the White House in private that he won't vote for Chipman. He hasn't said so publicly like you just mentioned. And I think that does generally indicate he that he doesn't want to go out on a limb to try and block Shipman. And if something changed Now right now you're in the middle of this, of a number of negative stories for David Shipman have come out all at once. And and so if he doesn't say no, publicly at this point, you know, maybe he'll maybe he just will wait until there's something like you said perhaps a mass shooting would be one example of something that could create new urgency towards confirming an ATF director, even if there's really no connection between the two things, as we often see with with gun gun politics, debates in this country, they're not usually the motivation to enact new laws is is comes after some sort of tragedy, even if the tragedy has nothing to do with whatever the new laws are. Or in this case, a new ATF director. And certainly there hasn't been a senate confirmed there's only ever been one senate confirmed director since they made this a senate confirmable position because it didn't. It didn't used to be. And so the agency's been dealing with acting directors for most of the time that there's been a senate confirmable ATF director position and that is one of the arguments for why Chipman should be, I guess pushed through from the democratic point of view. Certainly a lot of the agents who've come to speak out against him want a confirmed director. And I honestly think that if Biden ditched Chipman for somebody just a little bit less controversial, he could probably get them through fairly easily. Like the current Acting Director, Robinson, he could probably get him through very quickly and easily because he's not he doesn't have this association with gun control groups, even though he's not necessarily somebody that the age the industry would would view as, you know, one of their guys or whatever. But the I guess the issue with that is like picking someone like Shipman with his background, and the with the fact that he literally still works as a paid gun control activists or Giffords. The whole point of that is to send a political message, right? I mean, you don't do that because you think shipment is a good manager, or something along those lines. You do that to send a political message to your political allies that, you know, look, we're gonna we're on your side here, we're gonna reward you for supporting us in the last election or whatever it may be. So it's hard to so if at some level, even though Biden could easily get a director confirmed, it would be a big political loss for them to pull. Chipman, right. David Harsanyi 28:09 Yeah, no, I think that's all right. I think that they're projecting with him. Activism, right, because directors have a lot of power to basically do rulemaking and to decide where they focus their attentions, and essentially legislated from there, right. And because Biden can actually pass any gun legislation that he wants, all he has are executive actions, or, you know, executive orders, and the ability of ATF and others to to have new regimes that are stricter in whatever ways they want to be so right. This is absolutely because you can do anything about guns and he knows he's going to take a hit there for not doing something. David Shipman helps him say, look, I you know, this is an issue I care about, and I'm going to, you know, make changes, losing it is bad for him. I mean, but every time there's a scalp like this, I always worry that the next person will just be worse, perhaps more quiet, less known. Maybe they didn't work for gun control organizations, but I don't expect that whoever replaces David shipment if he's replaced, as the nominee will be any, any much better than him. But I think it's worth sending a message. If you're Pro, a pro gun person, it's worth sending the message that you you know, that it's worth taking down someone like this because you're populating your administration with activists is just another word for maybe the worst of all this is it right. So it's worth it. But I don't think that policy wise is gonna make much of a difference either way. Right. Stephen Gutowski 29:45 That's interesting question. Right. I mean, would would Chipman have an effect on policy that somebody like the current Acting Director Robinson wouldn't I mean, I think that you listen to the eight TF agents who have spoken out about him, they, I think they believe that he that there would be a significant difference between those those two kinds of nominees. I mean, I, you know, he certainly could try to put up another openly, like open activists like like Chipman, or he could try to find someone who's quietly, I guess, for in favor of trying to push the limits of what the ATF can do, on its own David Harsanyi 30:29 tells me that you're you're once you who, if you lose a battle like this, you're usually your next person isn't going to be as high profile, because you're gonna want to get him through you don't want you don't want to I mean, it helps them with their local republicans or obstructionists. You know, but that argument isn't as powerful when you have a Democrat, which is what's going to happen here stopping them. So, yeah, I don't know. It's hard to say, as, you know, with these sorts of things, but shipment. shipment. Another problem of shipment, though, is that he isn't quiet. So I feel like he'll be on news, you know, kind of pushing lawmakers towards certain directions giving that you know, I don't know, I just feel like you'd be more involved in ways beyond law enforcement that would be released, you know, my view, not the sort of thing I want law enforcement to be involved in. But he, let's be honest, he's kind of uniquely unlikable when when you see him up there, I don't know what it is, I hate to say this. I mean, it's not sort of stetic as are something that these kind of snide, and a bit of a jerk, right? When you watch him in interviews, the way he mocked gun owners numerous times zombies, I forget what he said. But I'm sure that someone more professional who has been in leader of actual real real life leader leadership positions would be a better nominee simply because they would just be more polished and have less of a history that you can hand on him. Stephen Gutowski 31:57 Yeah, I mean, it'd be interesting to see who they would what they would try to do if they can't get Chipman through, because I'm sure that we I feel like we're probably going to see that happen. I don't think he's going to make it after all. I think it's very hard to imagine a scenario where you where they get all 50 Democrats to vote for him. David Harsanyi 32:26 I think King is waiting for company, right? Like he doesn't want to be the one to stop him. I think he's waiting for mansion or someone to come out publicly Stephen Gutowski 32:34 is true? Yeah, I mean, that's the thing. None of them come out publicly. But there there's at least three, maybe four or five, who who haven't said they will vote though there's at least like five who haven't said they will vote for him. At this point. I think you kind of assume that that may be similar probably would, or I forget who the other. I kind of think it comes down to the three of mansion, tester and and King and that with like with a lot of things that you've seen democrats put forth? Most there's probably even more than that, who don't really want to vote for him. David Harsanyi 33:18 I get that something is so sorry. That rough? I think it says something as well that the moderate Republicans aren't voting for him. I mean, typically these sorts of nominees go through rather easily the Collins will usually go for it, etc. But having them say no, I think says to moderate democrats that perhaps you know, it's not the sort of person you're going to want on you when the next election comes around. But you know, Stephen Gutowski 33:42 that I think that is a big tell, frankly, that every single republican is publicly a no already on Shipman and that every member of the judiciary committee that's a republican wants a second hearing, because that includes people like, you know, Ben sasse. Yeah, yes, it's Cruz and, and cotton are on there. But it's also like Grassley and sass who are not, who are much more moderate members. David Harsanyi 34:08 And they're usually institutionalists who think that the president should get his guy or gal and for them to do this, I think, I think does show that there's probably less support than people think for shipment. Stephen Gutowski 34:22 So yeah, that's that's how I would do it too. And it just seems like having a couple zoom calls with the gun control groups, like unless angus king is just kind of an idiot. I mean, like, does he not realize that they all support him already? Like, what is it what's gonna be said in there? Let's change his mind. David Harsanyi 34:48 He's not known. Well, I don't want to say that but yeah, maybe maybe if he is susceptible to that sort of thing. Um, Stephen Gutowski 34:56 but, but I mean, I'm sure he's already heard all that but yeah. Like it's not like Chipman just got nominated. He's already gone through the hearings. Everyone like, it's not, I don't know, I just, to me, it just seems like if he's still saying no now, I don't think a couple of zoom meetings with with the gun control groups or whoever they bring out to talk to him are gonna change his mind. It just doesn't. Like usually politicians don't make decisions based off of like, they woke up one day and somebody made a really good argument to them. It's usually the politics of Yeah, really matter. Especially. I just don't I just don't see that changing. David Harsanyi 35:34 Yeah, I agree. And mansion in West Virginia has got to have a super high rate of gun ownership. I don't know what it is. But it has to be one of the Top Gun owning states or at least, I don't actually, I don't know that for a fact. But it's got to be up there. It's just hard for to see him going for it. Montana, I assume that gun ownership levels, they are through the roof too. Stephen Gutowski 35:57 So especially with re election coming up. David Harsanyi 36:00 Exactly. So now you're going to have a guy who wants to not just I believe he just doesn't if he wants to retroactively sort of ban ar 15 in the mean, he wants to collect them. He wants to confiscate them from people we said so in the past, I think it's changed on that. I mean, to run to run ads that you voted for a guy who wants to come to your house to take care of your ar 15 in Montana, I just it's hard to believe that anyone's gonna want that or West Virginia. So if King is is a no, and he's already told people he's a no, that probably indicates that there were other knows, as you mentioned, yes. I don't see it. I mean, I and also I hope, I hope that you know that reporting is right, because the guy's just a disaster. Stephen Gutowski 36:42 Yeah, I mean, he's already mentioning names for replacements. And I feel like that's he is according to one of my sources. Yeah. So Politico reported that he had this meeting with the White House, right that where he told them he doesn't know. On Shipman and I had a source, he told me the same thing, independent of that, before that political report came out. And my source also said that he had been he brought up two names, the current acting director, and the forming actor, former Acting Director back from 2019. I think his name is Branson, I believe, and Tom Branson. And so like, if that's true, and King is out there, putting out replacements, names to be considered. It's just, it's it's certainly not impossible that he would change his mind. I don't think I don't want to make it seem like this is a guaranteed deal that Chipman is not going to get through. Because I do think that the strategy you spoke of earlier with the White House, the White House can wait. There's no like the ATF has an acting director already right now. He's concerned for up to a year so they can just wait around. Although I do feel like the longer you wait in DC, the harder it becomes to do something whether it's confirm a nominee or pass a bill or whatever, without you know, significant changes. And you can't change Chipman he's he is who he is. But yeah, David Harsanyi 38:14 you know, what could happen though? The infrastructure bill or the reconciliation bill has a new highway, you know, in Maine? Yeah, the king superhighway or something and Stephen Gutowski 38:26 stuff like that. That would make sense as far as like some sort of political dealing going on to get the vote for on shipment if the White House wants to put that kind of political capital behind. Getting him through ethics is probably take a lot. Yeah. I don't think it's that important to them, frankly. I don't know. We'll see. I mean, we'll see. Like, it's like the big thing that says maybe he still got a chance is that they aren't publicly saying because when there's been one nominee that's failed so far, right. The woman from the Center for American Progress, right, who was big, you know, trash talker on social media, and that caused a lot of problems with senators to she'd previously attacked. And there's almost a more personal bent to that one. But I believe in that case, mansion actually came out and publicly said he wouldn't vote for which doomed her nomination. So David Harsanyi 39:25 yeah, worse people than Shipman gotten through Kristin Clark. You know, that woman who? Who is in charge of sort of rolling back due process rights in colleges, her name escapes me. So it's weird. I think this is just more politically loaded for people in purple states or or Democrats in red states than those nominations where it's a little, you know, there it's about legality and you know, things that aren't cultural or issues, I guess, like gun sort of are saying that's what sort of separates this out. bid and also again, you know, just that the guy has been out there, you know, mocking gun owners and stuff is really probably offended or easily offense gun owner. So and also because he's kind of a kind of a, you know, because he isn't authoritarian. So some of the stress that occasionally. Stephen Gutowski 40:20 But yeah, I mean, it's just it's one of those things where we'll have to wait and see until unless a senator comes out and specific democrat comes out and specifically says they're publicly, they're not going to vote for him. That's probably what it'll be is waiting a waiting game. And they do, in theory have plenty of time. But I think as the midterms approach, you get less and less likely to see big votes like this actually get made. So there's some there's some time constraint there. I think people People often underestimate how much really overestimate how much time there is to actually move on some of these things, given the way that Congress, their schedule is actually packed and how much more perilous becomes the past things right before an election, regardless of what the thing is David Harsanyi 41:10 also happy there's a delay because he's not in the job, right? If he loses a year and gets through, that's fine. I mean, he's lost a year of doing damage to the Second Amendment. So that's fine, as well. And I think it's okay, so it's a battle worth fighting. I don't think that but just we've been talking about democrats a lot and things any downside of Republicans obstructing his nomination at all? You know, which, which senators going to lose votes, because he's stopping a guy who wants to confiscate, you know, semi automatic rifles? No, not one. I assume? Stephen Gutowski 41:44 That's a good point. You know, there hasn't been much talk about that. The other way, like, Is there a political risk for Republicans to try and block this? I mean, the I guess the White House is trying to pin all this on them. But I haven't even seen any of the, like, liberal outlets try and try and make the argument that blocking Chipman will be, you know, detrimental to Republicans in the midterms. So it's that's interesting. Point to bring up, I think, but David Harsanyi 42:14 I don't think gun posing. restrict gun control laws have ever hurt republicans in virtually any state. And I mean, I know people tell me that it does, but I've never actually seen it happen. I think that there's just usually after one of these horrific shootings, there's a big upswing in the polls, and everyone points the polls, people want to do things. But really, when you get down to it, they don't want to do most don't want to do the things that you know, the democrats want to do. So there's just this, let's do something kind of vibe going out there. But in the end, the laws themselves are, you know, universal background, check this that it's just not popular in red states and it's just not going to get done. So that's why Chipman exists as an activist, and that's what shipment exists as a nominee. Stephen Gutowski 43:01 What do you think of the the media coverage of this? So far, especially the most recent developments, you know, David Harsanyi 43:08 did you see the Washington Post editorial on this? That didn't even mention I believe any of your reporting? Stephen Gutowski 43:15 No. Yeah. So the Washington Post came out with an editorial in support of David Shipman believed on Tuesday, and it was there wasn't really much to it. It's just basically like, it was fairly child childish, if I had to be completely honest and how I read the thing like it's, it's, I you know, I as a reporter, I think it's always important to distinguish between editorial side of an operation and the reporting side, but it's more and more difficult to do, but yeah, yeah. And and I think a lot of editorial boards are pretty, lowest common denominator of whatever the readership is at that point. So it's not necessarily surprising that the posted this but it was basically just a piece that said, Chipman good gun owners bad. That's the whole thing. Like, well, David Harsanyi 44:08 it made me laugh that they were talking about the, you know, super ultra sensitive, the sensitivities of gun owners were hurt. And basically, that's the reason anyone shipment is if they're so stupid. I mean, don't get me wrong, I think not having the person who's in charge of gun gun law, enforcing gun laws, mocking gun owners who go through background checks and do the things they're supposed to do is is a problem. But I mean, it was a lot more than that. They didn't mention any of the logical problems. They mentioned any of the, they said something stupid about how you don't need an AR 15 to hunt is if that's something that has anything to do with LR or the Second Amendment. And it just showed, as you say that they didn't really understand the issue at all. And, you know, I don't think and having been on an editorial board for a number of years, I can I think that you're correct in your assessment of the type of people who write for them. And I think that the Washington Post's especially true. Stephen Gutowski 45:01 Yeah, I just felt like there wasn't really much of an actual persuasive argument in there. It was basically written for people who already agree with the Washington Post editorial boards position that Shipman should be confirmed. It actually felt. It felt odd in its timing. Because it came out as the negative stories about Chipman where we're coming out, but it didn't respond to any of them or even mentioned them. David Harsanyi 45:28 It could be that administration official called someone at the Washington Post at the board and said, Listen, we need some backup. I'm serious. I mean, and it's just a guess what, that's what it felt like, because it was sort of a broad defense of him without, you know, any kind of rebuttal on any specific thing that you reported. The idea that the Washington Post's who says we, you know, democracy dies in darkness doesn't even mention that the government is hiding, you know, accusations of racism, you know, against the nominee for a top law enforcement job is just preposterous. There's zero way they would do this in any with any other president, not just trumpet bush or any any Republican. So it just made it was it was pretty weak. Stephen Gutowski 46:13 Yeah. I mean, it's hard to look at the circumstances, and think that they would have done the same thing with the Republican nominee. It's just, you know, I mean, the main question that I came away with, after reading that editorial was, you know, does the Washington Post editorial board even care whether or not the allegations that he made racist remarks are true? Because there is nothing we should know? David Harsanyi 46:41 The answer is no, they don't care. They don't care. And they want him there, because he is an activist and they want him there, because they he would they want him to do the things that we're talking about? that he would do, you know, strict enforcement, certain ways that undermine and inhibit gun ownership for law abiding citizens? And that's what they want? Because the Why would you throw in all kinds of throwaway lines about, you know, how the Second Amendment doesn't protect ar fifteens if you don't actually want him in there, making it harder for people to own them, you know, and scaremongering about ghost guns or whatever, you know, I forgot what they were talking about. But yeah, they do not care. And that's fine. We know what they're about. But the problem for me is, and the reason your site exists is that there's no one at that newspaper understands guns at all. person who wrote that editorial knows nothing about Second Amendment knows nothing about Heller probably knows, has never even met, you know, someone who shoots guns or anything, you know, a gun owner is certainly not, you know, a gun owner themselves. So, which is crazy, because maybe 40% of households have a gun in that. So you would think that the nation's leading newspaper in the capital of the country would have one editorialist who understood the who understood the issue to some extent, but they do not. Stephen Gutowski 48:02 Yeah. Yeah. You hit the nail on the head. With that, I think But as you know, as a reporter, and I mentioned this earlier, like, I tend to make distinctions between the editorial side of papers and the reporting side and, and look more favorably on the reporting side in a lot of cases. But I would say that the lack of follow up to my, my story has been disappointing. At best, the Politico did mention it in their piece to their credit, but it doesn't appear that anyone is other than me. At the reload has even asked this, the senators who are on the fence about Chipman about these allegations, like it doesn't, it doesn't appear that anyone has asked the White House about them other than myself. And, like, I just can't imagine that happening. If Chipman was a Trump nominee, or a bush nominee or whatever, it's just, you know, I try to have a forgiving view of the situation with most reporters and guns and gun coverage. Because, you know, like, I think most reporters try to do their job as best they can. And that a lot of the mistakes made in on the reporting side of, you know, missed media mistakes on guns, boils down to ignorance, which is obviously still a problem, but it's a different problem than, you know, just pure animosity towards guns like you see with a lot of editorial side thing. David Harsanyi 49:42 It's like as you're a nice guy, and you're a reporter and you're forgiving, but I have to tell you, I think there's a corruption within media. And I'm not saying that everyone reports about guns makes these mistakes on purpose, but I think that there's an ideological prism that everyone looks through and they're not the problem isn't that they Writing from a left wing perspective, which I think is most often the case. And when I was young, it wasn't even like guns were left or right wing issues a little bit different as more like a rural urban issue, kind of. But anyway, now it's I think, a lot fair to say left wing issue. It's not just that they look through a prism from the other left, it's that they're in, they're not curious to know, know about it all. They don't, how often do they? I mean, maybe they do, but how often do they actually call someone who knows what they're talking about? Very rarely, they just find some quote, they like they, they like imbue the whole thing with emotion, rather than facts when it comes to guns. And there's a there's a place for that, of course, to tell stories of victims and things like that, but I'm just saying in general, so I think that, you know, it's kind of you to think of them that way. But I think in most large papers, there's just no curiosity. Editors don't care. borders don't care. They're anti gun, they don't have any life experience with them most most often. And listen, I grew up I grew up in an area where no one had guns. And I even even though I was pro Second Amendment, I thought gun. People like guns a lot were nuts. Right? It was until I moved to Colorado where I met these people, I saw how like diligent they were and how much they cared about safety and how they weren't a bunch of Yahoo's, you know, on pickup trucks, shooting guns, you know, automatic rifles into the air. They're nothing like that vast majority of gun owners, but I think that the normal urban reporter, still thinks that right, and that's, you know, it's there in their reporting. Yeah. Stephen Gutowski 51:29 I think there's like a default. That is, you know, maybe not as extreme as you're describing it. I don't know that I agree completely, that that, that they're all that the default is that extreme. But I do think that that kind of thinking exists to as lower level as like the default care characteristic for a lot of reporters at major media outlets that they they don't have, like an active opinion on guns, but this is what everyone around them thinks. And so their base level is very much misinformed about firearms, and then also about why people own them and like them. And so they're much more likely to just repeat certain talking points from the gun control groups, or whatever, or repeat common misconceptions without doing the due diligence to understand the issue that they're reporting about. And I think a lot of this tends to stem from the fact that we don't really have gun reporters in the United States that that major media outlets, like you mentioned earlier, there's actually more than 40% of the country report having a gun in their home. But we don't have anyone outside of like the reload, where I started my own entire publication dedicated this who is actually on the gun beat as a reporter at a major outlet. They don't they're just really doesn't exist anyone like that. And it's odd, because every outlet has labor reporters, right? Probably multiple labor labor reporters, which is makes sense because it's an important part of society. But labor households make up like 7% of the country now they have a lot of political power. But you know, it's just an odd thing. That's an industry wide problem. David Harsanyi 53:25 I can give you a quick example of how this prism like totally skews the news recently. So Chipman is losing it looks like so a bunch of newspaper reporters, right? Even with the NRA, you know, in trouble and lacking its power. Somehow Chipman is still in trouble like they they've they're they've internalized this idea that the gun lobby and not gun owners but the gun lobby has all this money and power. And and you know that Ted Cruz only votes for gun stuff because the NRA is going to say something bad about it. Now don't get me wrong. I think the NRA coming out against you is not you know, it's not helpful politically in many places. But the NRA is only powerful because of gun owners because there's many gun owners and if the NRA goes away another organizational common I in my opinion will probably be more aggressive than the NRA, which hasn't been as aggressive as people think especially on the legal end. And we replaced them but they've been they've internalized this idea that there's just big gun money and you know, it's not like that and, and, and that's how they reported and it was just so funny reading it and stuff coming to the determination that actually there are tons of gun owners in this country don't like Dave Chipman that came to the determination that it must be some other group you know, some other group they call the nssf. Is that Stephen Gutowski 54:47 Yeah, so David Harsanyi 54:48 yeah, that's got to be some other powerful, you know, stopping and they just simply can't come to terms with the idea that a bunch of people in this country you know, like their guns and just don't want government in interfering with that right? And yeah, Stephen Gutowski 55:01 I think that's an astute observation about some one of the common misconceptions that gets pushed around by by media people whether I think, oftentimes that's the talking head types, but you do see it in reporting, you know, hard news reporting as well. And it is pretty ridiculous. It's just like, literally just boils down to this thing I don't like can't be popular, it must be. Because powerful people are buying off the politicians like that. David Harsanyi 55:34 And they do that with a lot of snakes. Yeah, they do that with a lot of things because they don't want to attack gun owners themselves. They want to say the NRA is a terrorist organization or whatever they say. And then it's, you know, so many politicians stand up and go, I won't, you know, bend to the NRA. It's except the least brave thing you could say, the NRA, no one likes the NRA in New York or I mean, you know, in any urban area, it's not like Hillary Clinton is losing a vote because she stands up to the NRA. What does that even mean? It doesn't mean anything. But anyway, you know, that's a bit but Stephen Gutowski 56:05 no, I think I think that's a very good point about these misconceptions that flourish, due to really just ignorance. I mean, it's just kind of such a simplistic, like, argument that you see made about this. This is the easy way out of anytime. Some, something you support isn't as popular as you wish it was. He just points in nefarious forces keeping it down, because the people all agree with me. It's, you know, the money. It's our money. But yeah, you see that a lot with the NRA. And I did I will say that I was nice to see the National Shooting Sports Foundation get some get some credit for once because everyone's always called the simplistic argument has always been that the NRA is the gun lobby. But the NRA, the gun industry has an actual lobby. That's what Yeah, nssf is they're the trade group for the gun industry. Like they represent the industry. And they've always lived under the NRA shadow, probably preferably, I'm sure they would rather things may seem a little more active lately, politically, you know, but Sure, well, they've always been pretty politically active, but they have a job David Harsanyi 57:18 of providing information. I mean, it just is what it is. And but and they make no, you know, there's no, they're not hiding their agenda right under the gun lobby. But But you're Stephen Gutowski 57:27 right, I just always thought it was funny that the the NRA gets credit for being the gun lobby when there is a real gun. It's not this. They don't they can't buy DC that, you know, even the the NRA is the biggest spender in political campaigns. But even they can pale in comparison to like the vast majority of other big spenders and oh, my God, David Harsanyi 57:49 they don't I made this point A few months ago, but Bloomberg, in his bid for the presidency spent more than the NRA spent in like a decade trying to win the presidency. I mean, the NRA spend some money. I mean, it matters, I think, probably to local candidates, you know, maybe some congressional candidates, but it's certainly nothing compared to the to any any major lobby that you can name. I mean, it's just always been over done. Stephen Gutowski 58:11 Oh, yeah. It's funny, too, because it only benefits two people or two groups. Which one is the, you know, Gun Control Act advocates who have to explain why their policies aren't as popular as they always say that they are. Right. I mean, even in Maine, they they had a ballot initiative for universal background checks at one point, which in 2016, and that lost at the ballot, there's no, there's no, you know, politicians holding back the vote there, it just wasn't as popular as the polling indicates it is. And so it benefits them because they can just say, Well, our policies really are that popular. They're just undercut by the NRA being so big, buying everybody off. And then the other group, ironically, that it benefits is the NRA, because it's absolutely right, because then they're viewed as like the ultimate power in DC when that's not really true. Like, you know, I always want to you have to be careful not to like totally undercut what they do actually accomplish because they are I still have very relevant and an influential group but not this like monolith that can just do anything they want and control all the politicians with their big checking checking account, that's well, David Harsanyi 59:26 they are they are all powerful if you listen to them Josh Marshall said nights ago that, you know, the NRA invented the individual right of gun ownership is just concocted out of the blue with all their big dark money. I mean, this is just you know, I'm not to mention my book again, but whatever I mean, I you know, the history in the history, the history of the Second Amendment, there was not a single person anywhere in the founding or before the founding, or after the founding until maybe the 1930s. They never thought of gun ownership as anything but an individual right, no one ever argued any other way. But Josh Marshall can blame the NRA, which wasn't even involved in politics. until maybe next 1977 in any real way, preventing this, right? So it's an easy, it's an easy and lazy way to argue. And And so yeah, it's very useful and it makes the NRA it probably feels not good for the NRA to think that they're powerful enough to invent Stephen Gutowski 1:00:16 amendment. That's the ironic thing about it is that in the end, it benefits the NRA by making them seem much more influential and powerful than they are, are in reality, even though in reality, they are still, you know, influential in their own right. But yeah, that's just one of the funny sort of ironies about these simplistic arguments you hear, but, but I just, you know, to me, I was just, I try my best to give the benefit of the doubt to other reporters, and I do my best to, you know, offer education when they wanted or advice on stories or whatever. And they do, I've had a lot of reporters take me up on that side, you know, I don't want to under undersell, you know, the idea that there are reporters who really, genuinely want to learn more about an issue that they when they write about it, I think a lot of good reporters out there want to do that. I just, you know, it's more like you look at the media landscape, and you look at the responses to the stories and, you know, maybe that maybe it's just sour grapes on my part, I don't know. But when when I saw the how heavy thing unfolded last week with, you know, the cooperating these allegations of racism against a major nominee for to run a federal agency, which got no coverage at all, not a single outlet, cover that until political link to it in their report. And then, you know, no follow up. And then that caused actual action on the on the hill, the Republicans, the entire republican caucus on this, the Senate Judiciary Committee wants a new hearing, specifically because of this story by name. They say that. Mitch McConnell, the minority leader says that the the nominee should be withdrawn, which I don't think he's, I mean, I could be wrong. Obviously, Republicans generally oppose all of the nominations that Biden has put forth. But I don't think that he's done that with another nominee. And and none of this received coverage from anyone outside of conservative media or Fox News, until this Political Report, which is really also not about any of that. It's kind of just a follow up of angus king, it's good reporting. But it's a follow up about the story that they've been covering in major media, which is just that these democrats are on the fence, and everyone's done that story. But which I wrote back in, like May, when, after the confirmation hearing or the early June. But David Harsanyi 1:02:45 yeah, you don't I don't know. You just look around. It's that's a good reporting, because it's actually you know, it affects something important. It's about a nominee. That's up right now. And that's the kind of reporting we should be getting from major outlets, but we only get that kind of deep dive when republicans are up. It's is what it is. I Stephen Gutowski 1:03:01 don't I don't, it's hard to ignore. David Harsanyi 1:03:03 Yeah, I know, there are plenty of it again, I in general, I think and I've gone You know, I used to always say Listen, you know, people, these people see things from a certain point of view, so they're not doing it on purpose. But I've changed my mind about that. I think there's a lot of corruption. I don't mean it as in in a like illegality, I just mean a corrupt media landscape. That is partisan. And so it's difficult to ferret out which person is good or not, but there are real reporters out there try to do the best they can, but they're not really rewarded in the same way someone is political is, you know what I mean. So if you have a big piece of that out, guns are terrible, people going to read it, you're going to get the clicks, people gonna pat you on the back in the newsroom. And if you write a report about, you know, ar fifteens are only responsible for you know, 5% of chronic gun crimes or less actually, then they will not pat you on the back and you will not be rewarded. So, you know, that's the dynamic I think's in play. And that's why they ignore your story. And I wish I you know, I wish I had a better, you know, a more rosier view of the media right now. Stephen Gutowski 1:04:04 Yeah, Yeah, me too. Well, you know, I always try to stay optimistic on it. Yeah. And try not to paint with too broad a brush. But you know, when you have all the patterns like this, yeah, David Harsanyi 1:04:13 I get old and I get cranky. And it's hard to be positive at this point. But um, yeah, you know, that's a listen, you're, I'm a, you know, I'm a columnist, whatever, and you're a reporter. Right? So, you know, I think that it's, it's fine for you to and it's a good thing that you make yourself available to reporters. And if people reach out to you, I think that that's a positive and, you know, things change, right. So maybe things will get better in the media moving forward, but Stephen Gutowski 1:04:38 maybe clues will say, this particular one doesn't, you know, engender a lot of hope, obviously, this this instance, but, but, you know, I remain hopeful and open to helping anyone else who wants to learn and they don't have to adopt whatever personal opinions I have about the gun issue like that. That's never a requirement of someone. You know, me talking to somebody about, you know, the issue or just explaining the gun laws as they are. And there's because there's just a lot of misconceptions, even within the people who write about this stuff, unfortunately, and it's remains and and. And it builds. David Harsanyi 1:05:15 Yeah, I mean, people attack me when I say you should know something about, you should know the difference between a semi automatic and an automatic gun, right, let's say, so they attack you like, what do we need to know everything about a law to be against it? Or, you know, do we need to know, you know, we need to be scientists to have an opinion on COVID and things like that? No, but if you're going to literally want to pass laws that have to do with the mechanics of a gun, you should have some basic knowledge of how that they work. I mean, literally the laws that you want to pass about the mechanics of a gun. So if you want to tell me that you want to ban assault weapons, you should know, the difference between, you know, an actual weapon of war and an AR 15. But the most these reporters, I just don't, or many of these reporters, at least I just don't think care enough to look more deeply into that. So anyway, they got me Well, Stephen Gutowski 1:06:06 why don't you tell us a little bit about where people can find you and your writing? David Harsanyi 1:06:11 Most of my writings at National Review, so National Review online, occasionally right for the New York Post, and some other outlets, and you can follow me on twitter at David harsanyi. One word wonderful. Stephen Gutowski 1:06:23 All right. Well, thank you so much for joining us. We really appreciate your your point of view on this. I think you're one of the one of the best gun writers out there, one of the best gun columnists. Thank you. So I really appreciate you coming on and sharing your perspective. Keep up the great work. Thank you. Alright, that is it for this episode of the weekly reload podcast. I would encourage you once again to go and buy a membership at the reload to get early access to the to the podcast and then also exclusive access to posts like my most recent one, looking at how likely it is David Shipman will actually be confirmed. After all these things have come in the last two weeks, so make sure you head over the reload and I will see you guys again. Next Unknown Speaker 1:07:13 I gave him poison just for fun. I had one friend. Now there's none. I made the devil broke so many bones. But none of them were ever my own army. I was alone. I broke so many bows. Transcribed by https://otter.ai