9626 hr1

The episode of Eye on the Target Radio opens with Amanda Suffecool and Rob Campbell discussing the transition from cap-and-ball firearms to fixed ammunition, using the example to compare technological transitions with modern changes such as gasoline, electric, and hybrid vehicles. The conversation then turns to major Second Amendment cases before the Supreme Court. The hosts discuss the Court’s decision to hear two consolidated AR-15 cases, Grant v. Higgins and Vera Montez v. Cook County, with oral arguments scheduled for December 2, 2026. They note that numerous organizations, individuals, and congressional Republicans have already filed amicus briefs and express the view that the AR-15 has become so widespread that arguments against its common use are increasingly difficult to sustain. They highlight Representative Andrew Clyde’s statement that the Second Amendment’s “shall not be infringed” language applies regardless of the firearm involved, presenting his position as representative of the pro-Second Amendment argument.

The discussion next focuses on a Hawaii case involving firearm restrictions for people under 21. The hosts criticize Hawaii’s position that individuals between 18 and 21 should not be allowed to possess firearms at all, contrasting it with states that permit ownership but restrict purchases. They discuss the judge’s reliance on what she described as “founding era common law” concerning the maturity and judgment of people under 21 and question whether that historical evidence actually supports the restriction under the Supreme Court’s Bruen framework. Amanda and Rob argue that the disagreement among courts and states may ultimately create the kind of legal conflict that requires Supreme Court review. They also express frustration with what they see as government efforts to regulate firearms rather than directly addressing violent criminals and gangs, arguing that society should place greater emphasis on individual responsibility and actual criminal conduct.

A major portion of the second half concerns President Donald Trump’s pardons of four people convicted in Second Amendment-related cases. The hosts discuss Tate Adamiak, who received a lengthy sentence under NFA rules after possessing firearms that had reportedly been demilled and later restored to functioning condition. They also discuss George Peterson, who was prosecuted for possessing a homemade suppressor, and Shane Cox and Jeremy Kettler, whose Kansas case involved a state law asserting that certain firearms-related items made and retained within Kansas were outside federal regulation. The hosts emphasize that none of the four men had used a firearm to commit a violent crime; rather, their convictions concerned possession or manufacture of items that authorities considered subject to federal restrictions. They view the pardons as a significant development for the Second Amendment community and question whether the changing federal administration is signaling a broader shift in how the ATF and Department of Justice handle firearms cases.

The hosts then consider the broader issue of executive power versus congressional action. They argue that many recent firearms-policy changes have come through presidential actions, agency decisions, or court cases rather than permanent legislation, leaving open the possibility that a future administration could reverse them. Amanda specifically says she plans to ask Harmeet Dhillon about the relationship among the White House, DOJ, and ATF and why so many favorable developments appear to be occurring at once. They suggest that the appointment of a new ATF leadership structure may also be contributing to the changes. The episode concludes with several “news of the week” stories, including a convenience-store robbery involving a cap-and-ball pistol, an incident aboard an airplane in which a disruptive passenger was restrained with duct tape by passengers including a former police officer and firearms instructor, and a Texas bank robbery reportedly stopped by an armed bystander. These stories lead to a broader discussion about the legal risks faced by ordinary citizens who intervene to protect others. Amanda and Rob argue that people who act to stop violence can potentially face legal consequences themselves and compare this with Good Samaritan protections available to people providing first aid. They ultimately return to a broader theme of wanting a more civil society in which citizens can responsibly intervene when necessary without automatically being treated as criminals.