Billionares and Guns...Money Talks
Gregory Kielma • August 6, 2024
Billionaires Laura and John Arnold – through Arnold Ventures, a Houston-based for-profit corporation are Anti Gun and funding Flawed Research
Laura and John Arnold
Billionaire Backing Biased Anti-Gun Research
“In this world, you get what you pay for,” said Kurt Vonnegut in Cat’s Cradle, his fourth novel. And when billionaire philanthropists are involved, Mr. Vonnegut is more than right. Nowadays, billionaires get exactly what they pay for.
An investigation by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project reveals how a former Enron trader and his wife are quietly paying millions of dollars every year to colleges, universities, think tanks and other groups for biased anti-gun research, which is then cited as gospel by the corporate media and used as propaganda by anyone who wants to infringe upon law-abiding Americans’ Second Amendment rights.
Billionaires Laura and John Arnold – through Arnold Ventures, a Houston-based for-profit corporation the couple founded to “proactively achieve social change” and their nonprofit, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation – are quietly bankrolling research that promotes and supports their radical anti-gun views. Their Foundation has more than $3.5 billion in assets.
Despite their predilection to work in secret, the couple’s actions have not gone unnoticed.
“Arnold Ventures is the gun control backer most Americans have never heard of. They quietly work behind the scenes, unlike Michael Bloomberg. However, their influence on trying to shape gun control policy rivals that of the biggest backers of antigun efforts. They regularly donate money to think tanks and academia to propel biased research into the policy arena. Arnold Venture’s philanthropic outreach sounds well-intentioned, but they’re serving up snake oil when they peddle firearms as a disease,” Mark Oliva, public affairs director for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, said last week.
The Arnolds’ massive financial clout creates an unholy alliance between grantor and grantee. Their paid researchers publish findings that support the couple’s views, or they risk the cash spigot being turned off and the loss of millions of dollars to their organization.
When it comes to their donations, it is clear who determines where the money goes.
“Laura and John established the Laura and John Arnold Foundation in 2010. They believe philanthropy should be transformational and should seek through innovation to solve persistent problems in society. As co-founders, Laura and John actively engage in the organization’s overall direction and daily execution,” the group’s website states.
John Arnold started as a trader for Enron, according to Influence Watch. He quit before the company imploded and was never accused of wrongdoing. In addition to gun control, the couple supports health care reform, criminal justice reform, prison reform and several nonprofit media groups.
The RAND Corporation is a major recipient of the Arnolds’ funding. RAND now maintains a gun-policy page. Much of their research is sponsored by the Arnolds.
According to the Laura and John Arnold Foundation’s 2022 IRS form 990, the couple paid RAND at total of $2.8 million, of which $1.7 million was for anti-gun research, including:
• $1,261,269 “to conduct research on how to reduce gun violence.”
• $99,000 “to support the first national conference on gun violence prevention research.”
• $89,000 “to support a convening relating to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Bruen case.”
• $283,546 “to provide objective information about firearm violence and how state laws reduce or exacerbate this violence.”
That same year, the couple paid more than $1.8 million for anti-gun research from other groups, including:
• $28,040 to the National Opinion Research Center “to support the NORC expert panel on reducing gun violence and improving data infrastructure.”
• $219,122 to the University of California at Berkeley “to evaluate the advance peace gun violence reduction program.”
• $1,065,933 to Princeton University “to develop a research infrastructure that helps cities better understand and respond to waves of gun violence.”
• $475,093 to the University of Maryland “to support the center for study and practice of violence reduction.”
In total, the Foundation donated more than $185 million, according to their 2022 IRS Form 990.
Arnold Ventures public relations director, Angela Landers, declined to be interviewed for this story, arrange an interview with the Arnolds or discuss the gun-control research they funded. Instead, Landers chose to send a written statement, which is unedited and reprinted in its entirety:
“Philanthropy can play a unique role in supporting research regarding the impact of many public policies, including those related to gun violence. In this instance, Arnold Ventures partnered with RAND Corp., a nonpartisan and widely respected research institution, to conduct scientific research that offers the public and policymakers a factual basis for developing fair and effective gun policies in the interest of public safety. Sound research is an important part of building evidence-based solutions,” Landers said in her statement.
RAND’s Response
While there were infrequent gun-related projects over the years, the RAND Corporation as a whole did not research “gun violence” until 2016, when there was a mass-shooting near their California office, according to Andrew R. Morral, PhD, a senior behavioral scientist at RAND and the Greenwald Family Chair in Gun Policy.
“A lot of our staff were rattled by it, as were RAND trustees and friends of RAND,” Morral told the Second Amendment Foundation last week. “They contacted our president and asked what we were going to do about it.”
RAND set aside some internal funds because the work was not yet sponsored and investigated, Morral explained. In 2018, they released their first tranche of research.
“Arnold Ventures picked it up and has funded us since then,” he said.
Today, Arnold Ventures is RAND’s largest sponsor of gun-control research. Together with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the two groups pay RAND more than $1.5 million annually, Morral said. Federal grants from the National Institute of Health and the National Institute of Justice provide additional “gun-violence” research funding.
None of RAND’s estimated 1,900 employees are researching gun-control full time, Morral said. Although he estimated between six to eight staffers are studying gun-control topics “as part of their research portfolios.”
Morral denied that Arnold Ventures or any other donor interfered with their research.
“We are very careful to not allow that to happen,” he said. “We haven’t experienced any pressure and we have not been asked to share our findings with Arnold Ventures or any other sponsor. We aren’t held accountable for producing results in a certain direction. Our donors, generally, are interested in us being neutral and objective, which is part of the reason they came to RAND.”
Still, Morral acknowledged that their sponsors can use their research however they see fit.
“We realize it’s used for advocacy, of course. We’re producing scientific results. We can’t control how they’re used. People will use that in a variety of ways. Our results are used by both advocates for more restrictive gun laws as well as advocates for less restrictive gun laws.”
Morral said RAND takes no position on the right to keep and bear arms. “We don’t have policy positions on that or on gun laws or anything else,” he said. “We don’t advocate. We don’t do any advocacy.”
However, it is RAND’s opinion and Morral’s that “gun-violence” constitutes a public health crisis.
“I certainly think there’s a crisis in terms of the number of people dying and being injured each year,” he said. “The numbers are high enough to call that a crisis.”
RAND, Morral said, stands by the validity of their gun-violence research, “subject to the limitations reported in our reports. All research has limitations, and we try to be upfront about that,” he said.
RAND’s position on two frequent gun-control targets is clear, concise and published on its website.
• Concealed-carry laws increase homicides rates: “Evidence shows that concealed carry laws – when states implement more permissive concealed carry laws, there’s a small increase in homicide rates. Our own research has found evidence of that – some suggestive evidence,” Morral said.
• Stand-your-ground laws increase homicide rates: “The current evidence is that when states implement stand-your-ground laws, firearm homicide rates increase,” he said.
RAND researchers published a report last Wednesday, which was funded by Arnold Ventures and a National Institute of Health grant, titled “State Policies Regulating Firearms and Changes in Firearm Mortality.”
Morral was one of the scientists involved in the project.
The objective was to estimate the effects state firearm policies have on gun-related deaths. The researchers examined six policies: “background checks, minimum age, waiting periods, child access, concealed carry, and stand-your-ground laws.”
The findings were mixed. Child-access prevention laws can reduce gun deaths by 6%, and stand-your-ground laws can increase firearm deaths by 6%, the authors claimed.
“Our finding that most of these individual state-level firearm policies have relatively modest and uncertain effect sizes reflects that each firearm policy is a small component of a complex system shaping firearm violence. However, we found that combinations of the studied policies were reliably associated with substantial shifts in firearm mortality,” the authors noted.
All of the authors – Terry L. Schell, PhD; Rosanna Smart, PhD; Matthew Cefalu, PhD; Beth Ann Griffin, PhD and Morral – work for RAND at either its Santa Monica, California, or Arlington, Virginia, offices.
All of the authors except Morral disclosed conflicts of interest: “Dr Schell reported receiving grants from Arnold Ventures and National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism during the conduct of the study. Dr Smart reported receiving grants from Arnold Ventures and the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study. Dr Cefalu reported receiving grants from Arnold Ventures during the conduct of the study. Dr Griffin reported receiving grants from Arnold Ventures during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.”
The authors claimed that neither Arnold Ventures not the NIH exercised any control of their work.
“The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication,” the report states.
RAND’s NIH Grant of $790,100 was awarded Sept. 25, 2020, and is ongoing.
“Don’t Get Mad About Guns …”
Three months ago, the Trace – the propaganda arm of former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun empire – announced they were creating a Gun Violence Data Hub, which would “help journalists access data on one of America’s most critical – and opaque – public health crises.”
“The Data Hub is a multiyear project to increase the accessibility and use of accurate data on gun violence in journalism. Its team of editors, reporters and researchers will proactively collect and clean datasets for public distribution, write and share tip sheets, and serve as a resource desk to other newsrooms, assisting journalists in their pursuit of data-informed reporting,” the Trace reported.
Arnold Ventures was one of the Data Hub’s top sponsors.
To be clear, Arnold Ventures has radical anti-gun views. The group believes “firearm violence” constitutes a public health crisis. “Gun violence,” it claims, has become the leading cause of death of “young people,” not children, the group states on its website. By referring to young people rather than children, they can include 18- to 20-year-olds in their data set to make the numbers work.
Arnold Ventures wants to bridge the gap in anti-gun research, which they say was created by the 1996 Dickey Amendment, which prohibits the federal government from conducting anti-gun research.
Don’t Get Mad About Guns — Get Funding for Research, the group offers on its website.
“It isn’t enough to get mad about gun violence,” Asheley Van Ness, Arnold Ventures former director of criminal justice, wrote in The Houston Chronicle.“Change starts with adequate funding for research, or else policymakers may end up spending time and money on programs that simply don’t work.”
In 2018, to streamline its funding efforts, Arnold Ventures launched the National Collaborative on Gun Violence Research (NCGVR). Its mission is to “fund and disseminate nonpartisan, scientific research that offers the public and policymakers a factual basis for developing fair and effective gun policies.”
“At Arnold Ventures, we use our resources to confront some of the most pressing problems facing our nation,” Arnold Ventures President and CEO Kelli Rhee stated on the group’s website. “Five years ago, we, like many others, recognized that our understanding of gun violence was suffering from a severe lack of investment in research, and we joined together with our partners to try and fill some of the gap. While more investment from both public and private entities is undoubtedly needed, the National Collaborative on Gun Violence Research has made significant progress in building the gun policy evidence base.”
Since 2022, the NCGVR has issued more than 50 grants, including “13 dissertation research projects and seven post-doctoral research fellowships, as well as awards for large new studies on domestic gun violence, officer-involved shootings, harms to firearm owners associated with gun laws, gun suicides, gun policy analysis and urban gun violence.”
Arnold Ventures chose RAND to administer the NCGVR, and RAND put Morral in charge. Today, Morral co-leads the NCGVR, which he says brings RAND “a couple hundred-thousand dollars per year.”
“It was an opportunity to improve research in the field,” Morral told the Second Amendment Foundation. “It was something that seemed like an interesting project to work to elevate. There wasn’t much research going on, and it was an area we were trying to make some headway in with our own funding. We recognized there was a gap in knowledge about gun policy that wasn’t being studied.”
Takeaways
There is certainly nothing unlawful about a well-heeled couple sponsoring gun-control research or research of any kind. The Arnolds are free to spend their millions as they see fit. However, since their largesse can negatively impact the civil rights of millions of law-abiding Americans, the Arnolds should be prepared to answer for their philanthropy.
The couple has created a pipeline of sorts, cash goes in one end and anti-gun propaganda comes out the other.
The risks they’ve created are dire.
“When a cable TV news actor cites some farcical statistic about guns or gun owners, it’s important to understand how that number made it onto the teleprompter,” said Second Amendment Foundation founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “It starts with donor dollars sent to researchers at left-leaning colleges, universities or other groups, who publish reports that mirror their donors’ views, which are then regurgitated by the corporate media. It’s a factory-like process. We don’t have anything like that. We don’t need it. We simply rely upon the truth.”
The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn’t be possible without you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support pro-gun stories like this.
Louisiana House Rejects Firearm Storage Mandate, Advances Two Pro-Gun Measures Story by Mike Jenkins The Louisiana House of Representatives took decisive action on several firearm-related bills Thursday, defeating a measure that would have mandated specific firearm storage practices while approving two bills aimed at expanding gun rights. The two pro-gun bills now head to the State Senate for further consideration. The Senate will now take up both HB 393 and HB 407 for additional policy committee hearings. These two bills join another pro-gun measure, HB 289, already in the Senate and eligible for a committee hearing. Authored by Representative Dewith Carrier, HB 289 is a pro-Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) bill. It aims to further protect the firearm and ammunition industry from being held liable for the criminal misuse of their legally manufactured and sold products by third parties. HB 289 has been referred to the Senate Judiciary C Committee and could receive a hearing as early as next week. In other legislative activity, SB 101, a pro-gun bill authored by Senator Blake Miguez, is poised for a House floor vote next week. This bill seeks to eliminate some gun-free zones, allowing individuals legally carrying under constitutional carry provisions or with out-of-state concealed carry permits recognized by Louisiana to carry in more locations across the state. Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage. Connect with us: Follow the Tampa Free Press on Facebook and Twitter for breaking news and updates. Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox.
Kristi Noem From The....THE BLAZE! Kristi Noem’s bombshell letter hits Harvard where it hurts Owen Anderson May 24, 2025 Ivy League academics mocked traditional values for decades. Now they’re panicking as their utopian vision crumbles — without a savior in sight. Picture a Harvard University faculty lounge: a ring of professors clustered around Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s letter, one of them furrowing his brow and murmuring, “Wait, are we the baddies?” Such moments of self-awareness, alas, remain forever just beyond the reach of our academic elite. The very institutions that lecture us daily about our original sin — racism — have, with impressive irony, perfected the art of racial discrimination. We are now at the far end of a 75-year arc that began with William F. Buckley Jr.’s “God and Man at Yale” and ends, aptly, with Harvard losing federal funds over the consequences of its own institutional neglect. The problems Buckley identified — contempt for Christianity and American ideals chief among them — have not only remained; they have metastasized. The very professors who made a career of moral hectoring have, predictably, become the thing they claimed to hate. How did we get here? On Thursday, Noem sent a letter to Harvard informing the school that it had lost its certification for the Student and Exchange Visitor Program. This came after Harvard repeatedly ignored federal requests to disclose statistics related to anti-Semitic activity on campus. According to the letter, Harvard fosters a hostile environment for Jewish students, tolerates pro-Hamas sympathies, and sustains racially discriminatory diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. Sign up for the Blaze newsletter By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, and agree to receive content that may sometimes include advertisements. You may opt out at any time. Harvard is now learning the lesson that Christian colleges grasped nearly half a century ago: Government money comes with government strings. But why did it take Harvard so long to recognize this? The answer is disarmingly simple — until now, those strings were always in harmony with Harvard’s ideological tune. Federal dollars came bundled with leftist priorities, and thus the elite saw no need to question them. Christian colleges, in contrast, often declined the money to preserve their mission of faithfulness to Scripture. What’s astonishing is that Harvard — the oldest corporation in the Western Hemisphere, chartered in 1650 — still behaves as though it needs government money. Its endowment, by the latest count, stands at more than $53 billion. Yet judging from the panic issuing from the president’s office, one might think bankruptcy was imminent. The reason? DEI is embedded so deeply into Harvard’s research infrastructure — even in the sciences — that stripping funding from DEI-tainted grants strikes at the university’s financial core. In academic circles, panic now masquerades as prophecy. Professors speak as though the world is ending — though, given their long record of failed doomsday predictions about climate catastrophe, one might be forgiven for tuning them out. I remember, early in my career, being told by an administrator that Al Gore’s book was a “road map to the future.” It turned out to be more of a road map to irrelevance. Global warming’s great success was posting more failed predictions than Hal Lindsey. But now the panic is personal. It’s not the planet they fear losing. It’s their world — their imagined utopia of managed speech, redefined morality, and subsidized ideology. That world is slipping through their fingers, and they have nothing left but their performances of alarm, such as reading an indigenous land acknowledgement, confessing their privilege, employee training about infinite genders, and giving a voice to the voiceless. This explains the despair among leftist academics. Even as the broader world shows signs of improvement, economically, culturally, and even morally, they howl louder. Why? Because the improvement is happening without them — or worse, despite them. They believed they were changing the world by sermonizing about “whiteness” and “heteronormativity.” Instead, they became a punch line. They trained a generation of DEI advocates with the promise that there would always be government work, but those jobs disappeared faster than the edibles at a faculty party. This is why Noem’s letter cuts so deeply. It documents, officially and unambiguously, the discriminatory policies of Harvard University. The very professors who made a career of moral hectoring have, predictably, become the thing they claimed to hate. As we turn the page on this chapter of the failed American university, we should remember that Buckley, despite his critique, was ultimately optimistic. He knew that donors, parents, and students were no longer represented by Ivy League ideology, even as those schools embraced collectivism in his day. He believed they would reject the communitarian ideologies of these universities. And they have! Now, as the last gasps of those failed philosophies echo through Harvard Yard, we too have reason to be hopeful. Parents, donors, and students are awakening, and they’re asking for something better. American ideals and Christianity are back on the menu at the schools that matter. Perhaps, at long last, we are remembering what once made Harvard great in the first place: Veritas.
Nevada Man Sentenced to 46 Months in Prison for Threatening U.S. Senators A Las Vegas man who pleaded guilty to threatening a U.S. Senator from Nevada and threatening family members of two United States Senators was sentenced today to over three years in prison followed by three years of supervised release. “The threats against these U.S. Senators and their families were vile, dehumanizing, and shameful,” said Sue J. Bai, head of the National Security Division. “Today’s sentence reflects the Department’s firm resolve to holding accountable those who seek to intimidate and harm our public officials. Such threats of violence have no place in our country.” “With today’s sentencing, the defendant will pay the price for making threats of violence,” said Assistant Director Donald M. Holstead of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division. “It is unacceptable to threaten public officials or anyone else, and the FBI will work with our law enforcement partners to identify and hold accountable anyone who engages in such illegal activity.” According to court documents, from Oct. 11 to 25, 2023, John Anthony Miller left numerous threatening voicemails at the offices of two U.S. Senators. Miller threatened to assault and murder a U.S. Senator with intent to impede, intimidate, and interfere with U.S. Senator while engaged in the performance of official duties, and with intent to retaliate against the U.S. Senator on account of the performance of official duties. The following week, on Oct. 24 and Oct. 25, Miller threatened to assault and murder a member of the immediate family of two U.S. Senators, with intent to impede, intimidate, and interfere with the U.S. Senators while engaged in the performance of official duties, and with intent to retaliate against the U.S. Senators on account of the performance of official duties. Miller pleaded guilty to one-count of threatening a federal official and two-counts of influencing, impeding, or retaliating against a federal official by threatening a family member. U.S. District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey presided over the sentencing hearing. The FBI Las Vegas Field Office investigated the case with valuable assistance provided by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, the U.S. Marshals Service, and the U.S. Capitol Police. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jacob Operskalski and Daniel Schiess for the District of Nevada prosecuted the case. To report suspected threats or violent acts, contact the FBI at 1-800-CALL-FBI (225-5324) or file an online complaint at www.tips.fbi.gov. If someone is in imminent danger or risk of harm, contact 911 or your local police immediately.
Attorney General Pamela Bondi, DEA, & USAO New Mexico Announce Results of Historic Drug Bust On May 6, 2025, Attorney General Pamela Bondi, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Mexico, announced the outcome of a weeklong, multi-agency enforcement operation targeting one of the largest drug trafficking organizations responsible for flooding communities with fentanyl and other illicit narcotics.
Maryland drug trafficker sentenced to five years in prison for firearms offense U.S. Attorney's Office, Eastern District of Virginia ALEXANDRIA, Va. – A Maryland man was sentenced today to five years in prison for possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. According to court documents, on Dec. 7, 2024, an officer of the Pentagon Force Protection Agency (PFPA) initiated a traffic stop after she observed Kaleel Malcolm Nagbe, 21, of Baltimore, holding a cellphone as he was driving on the Pentagon Reservation. As she approached the vehicle, the officer detected the odor of marijuana and asked Nagbe to exit the vehicle. After being informed that PFPA officers would be conducting a probable-cause search of the vehicle, Nagbe reentered the vehicle and attempted to drive away. Another PFPA officer then leaned into the vehicle and grabbed Nagbe. Both officers prevented Nagbe from driving away and secured him after a brief struggle. During a search of the vehicle, officers located approximately 13 pounds of marijuana in the trunk and multiple clear baggies in the passenger compartment that bore images of characters from the cartoon “Codename: Kids Next Door.” The baggies bore a QR code that, when scanned with a cellphone, were linked to an Instagram account that advertised marijuana for sale using the same cartoon packaging. When officers searched Nagbe they located a loaded firearm in his underwear. The firearm had a round of ammunition in the chamber and 16 additional rounds in the magazine. The firearm was equipped with a machinegun conversion device, rendering it capable of firing automatically. On Jan. 4, 2023, Nagbe was convicted in the Montgomery County, Maryland, Circuit Court of possession of a regulated firearm by a person under 21 years of age, and was sentenced on April 23, 2023, to five years in prison, with all but the 367 days he had already spent in custody suspended. Nagbe was on probation for that conviction at the time of the current offense. Erik S. Siebert, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia; Anthony A. Spotswood, Special Agent in Charge of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Washington Field Division; and Chris Bargery, Director of the Pentagon Force Protection Agency, made the announcement after sentencing by U.S. District Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff. Assistant U.S. Attorney John C. Blanchard prosecuted the case. This case is part of Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN), a program bringing together all levels of law enforcement and the communities they serve to reduce violent crime and gun violence, and to make our neighborhoods safer for everyone. On May 26, 2021, the Department launched a violent crime reduction strategy strengthening PSN based on these core principles: fostering trust and legitimacy in our communities, supporting community-based organizations that help prevent violence from occurring in the first place, setting focused and strategic enforcement priorities, and measuring the results. A copy of this press release is located on the website of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia. Related court documents and information are located on the website of the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia or on PACER by searching for Case No. 1:25-cr-6. Contact Press Officer USAVAE.Press@usdoj.gov Updated May 22, 2025
Seven-Time Convicted Felon Sentenced To More Than Two Years For Attempting To Illegally Purchase A Firearm U.S. Attorney's Office, Middle District of Florida Jacksonville, Florida – U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Corrigan has sentenced Stephen K. Gainous (38, Jacksonville) to 30 months in federal prison for making a false statement to a federally licensed firearms dealer during the attempted purchase of a firearm. Gainous pled guilty on February 14, 2025. According to court documents, Gainous completed an ATF Form 4473 during the attempted purchase of a firearm from a federally licensed firearms dealer. Gainous indicated on the required paperwork that he was not a felon. This was a false statement, in that Gainous was previously convicted of seven felonies, including battery on a child, making a false statement during the acquisition of a firearm, possession of cocaine, criminal use of personal identification, and fraudulent use of a credit card. This case was investigated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. It was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Brenna Falzetta. This is another case uncovered through the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). All NICS denials are reported to federal law enforcement and are reviewed daily for potential criminal prosecution. Federal law makes it a felony offense to make a false statement to a firearms dealer when trying to buy a gun. This case is part of Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN), a program bringing together all levels of law enforcement and the communities they serve to reduce violent crime and gun violence, and to make our neighborhoods safer for everyone. On May 26, 2021, the Department launched a violent crime reduction strategy strengthening PSN based on these core principles: fostering trust and legitimacy in our communities, supporting community-based organizations that help prevent violence from occurring in the first place, setting focused and strategic enforcement priorities, and measuring the results. Updated May 22, 2025
Pam Bondi ATF Updates National Policy on Federal Firearm Licensee Inspections To Promote Fairness, Consistency, and Public Safety The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives today issued an updated national policy for administrative actions related to compliance inspections of federal firearms licensees. The guidance promotes clear, consistent and fact-based decisions that uphold ATF’s commitment to public safety and respect for Second Amendment rights. The policy replaces the 2021 Enhanced Regulatory Enforcement policy, also known as the "zero-tolerance" policy. It directs industry operations investigators to consider all circumstances of an inspection rather than applying automatic outcomes, ensuring ATF uses its regulatory authority fairly and effectively. “This update is about getting it right and making sure we’re focused on public safety,” ATF Acting Director Daniel Driscoll said. “Under the previous policy, some licensees were being penalized for simple mistakes such as, forgetting to put their license number on forms. This new guidance gives our investigators the discretion to tell the difference between an honest mistake and a real threat to public safety. Law-abiding dealers deserve a system that treats them fairly, not like suspects. They are our partners and the first line of defense in our efforts to combat firearms trafficking.” The policy provides investigators and field leadership clearer guidelines for evaluating violations, weighing mitigating and aggravating factors, and determining the proper response—from education and warnings to administrative actions. Decisions must factor in whether licensees self-reported issues, implemented corrective actions, or present a continuing threat to public safety. These updates support the administration’s efforts to increase transparency and public confidence in government oversight, reaffirming ATF’s commitment to accountability and legitimate business practices. Key points of the updated policy • Context-driven enforcement: Serious, willful violations may lead to administrative action, while minor or clerical errors may be addressed with education or warnings. • No automatic revocation: Removes the prior policy’s presumption of license revocation, instead considering intent, compliance history and public-safety risks. • Stronger public-safety focus: Investigators must evaluate whether continued operations pose a public-safety threat or contribute to violent crime, and whether the licensee demonstrates the ability to comply moving forward. • Clear legal standards and timelines: Defines key terms such as “willful” and “knowing” and establishes uniform timelines for reviews, actions and coordination. • Support for lawful industry engagement: ATF continues early intervention and collaboration with responsible licensees, while firmly addressing repeat or serious violations. ATF conducts compliance inspections as part of its mission to ensure firearms are sold, transferred and documented in accordance with federal law. The revised policy ensures inspections are fair, consistent and focused on reducing violent crime while protecting the rights of responsible gun owners. Compliance inspections also support ATF’s broader efforts to combat firearms trafficking. By examining dealer records and business practices, industry operations investigators can identify suspicious patterns—such as straw purchases or missing inventory—that may indicate firearms are being diverted into illegal markets. These findings assist in criminal investigations and help reduce violent crime by preventing guns from falling into the wrong hands. ATF is the federal law enforcement agency responsible for regulating the firearm industry and enforcing laws related to firearms and violent crime. For more information, visit atf.gov or follow @ATFHQ on X. Contact: ATF Public Affairs Division, Liaison2@atf.gov
Have you ever had to use your concealed carry? Kielma say’s, this from an avid reader of my blog. Your thoughts? Unfortunately, yes. I was pumping gas into my 2011 mustang boss 5.0 when a Hispanic looking man came up from behind me and when he yelled HEY! I turned around and he had a gun pointed at my face. He told me in broken English to stop what I was doing so I stopped pumping gas and hung up the gas pump. While still pointing his gun at me he got in my car and locked the door. When he tried to start my car, he suddenly realized that the key was not in the ignition. He turned towards me, and I had already pulled my micro desert eagle .380 out of my pocket and now I was pointing it at his head. The idiot tried to reach for his gun which he had placed next to him on the passenger seat. I screamed “RIGHT THERE” at the top of my lungs. He looked scared and I used my key to unlock the door, and I ordered him out of my car. I pistol whipped him hard across his face and ordered him on the ground. I told him that he had really fucked up and that I was going to kill him. I guess he decided to take a chance, and he got up and started running down the street. I decided to just let him go because I didn't want to kill anyone after all. When he was a block away, I went into the tiger mart and asked the clerk if they had a security video. He said we have cameras, but the machines haven't worked for a long time. I decided screw it because there's no proof and I left. I still have that scumbag’s gun. FYI never leave your keys in the ignition when you're pumping gas and keep your head on a swivel. If you live in a carry state buy yourself a good compact handgun and get a CCP.
States Move to Ban Glocks Over Full-Auto Conversion Panic Scott Witner - You read that right— California and Illinois lawmakers are pushing bills to ban Glock pistols. Why? Because some criminals have illegally installed so-called “Glock switches” to convert them to full-auto fire. These devices, also known as auto sears, are already federally banned, heavily prosecuted, and undeniably illegal under the National Firearms Act. But that’s not enough for anti-gun legislators. Instead of punishing criminals, they’re coming after law-abiding gun owners—again. From Banning Devices to Banning Guns The logic behind these proposed bans is just as ridiculous as it sounds: Since some criminals have illegally modified Glock pistols, the solution must be to ban Glocks altogether. In California, Assembly Bill 1127 seeks to outlaw the sale of Glock pistols and any other handgun that could potentially be converted to full-auto. Meanwhile, Illinois’ HB4045 is aiming for the same target. And you can bet other blue states are watching closely. As Gun Owners of America National Director Mark Jones warned in a recent interview, this trend could spread. “Our citizens need to be vigilant and not think it cannot happen here,” said Jones. “Colorado has shown us that with their transformation over a decade.” Even in pro-gun states like Wyoming, gun owners are being warned not to get too comfortable. Elections have consequences, and the anti-gun crowd is playing the long game. Let’s Be Clear: Full-Auto Conversions Are Already Illegal Glock pistols, like the overwhelming majority of modern handguns, are semi-automatic—one round fired per trigger pull. The “Glock switch” alters the pistol’s internal mechanism to make it fire fully automatic, which is illegal unless you own a properly registered machine gun manufactured before 1986 (and good luck affording one). These devices are typically imported illegally from China and other black market sources. They’re unreliable, unsafe, and built with all the quality you’d expect from a sketchy ePacket shipment. Not only are they illegal to possess under federal law, but installing one can seriously damage your firearm—or injure the user. Yet instead of focusing on those criminals, lawmakers want to punish the millions of Americans who legally carry and depend on Glock handguns for self-defense. Banning Glocks Won’t Survive Constitutional Scrutiny The push to ban handguns like Glocks isn’t just unconstitutional—it’s already been ruled that way. George Mocsary, director of the Firearms Research Center and professor at the University of Wyoming College of Law, pointed out that the Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller decision explicitly affirmed the individual right to own handguns. “It’s just an effort by these states to harass the people who own these Glock handguns lawfully,” Mocsary said. That precedent is crystal clear: You can’t ban handguns just because a few bad actors break the law. And trying to justify a ban based on the hypothetical that someone might commit a felony with an aftermarket part? That’s like banning pickup trucks because someone might use one to flee a robbery. What This Means for Gun Owners If these bills pass, don’t expect them to stop at Glock. Any pistol with a polymer frame and a modular fire control group could be next. Heck, even metal-framed classics could be targeted if someone finds a way to hack them. And for those traveling through California or Illinois with a concealed carry permit? Be careful. Even if your permit is recognized, your legally-owned Glock could make you a criminal under these new laws. “It certainly could impact travel,” said Jones. “Even if traveling with a reciprocal permit, you need to comply with the laws of the state where you go.” A Desperate New Gun Control Tactic Jones summed it up best: This isn’t about safety—it’s about control. “Specifically, to these switches, it is already a federal felony to illegally convert a weapon to full auto,” he said. “This is already illegal, so more unconstitutional gun control isn’t the answer.” These proposals aren’t just misguided—they’re proof that anti-gun legislators will never stop at regulating illegal behavior. Their real goal is to chip away at lawful gun ownership, piece by piece. And now they’re coming for America’s most popular handgun.
ATF issuing suppressors for the ‘health and safety’ of its agents, but what about us? Lee Williams The ATF admitted it issues $1,300 rifle suppressors for the “health and safety” of its law enforcement agents, “due to the extensive training and quarterly firearms qualifications they must complete,” according to our story published Wednesday. But those three words chosen by the ATF – health and safety – set off a bomb among readers, and rightly so, because of how those of us who aren’t ATF agents are treated if we want to protect our own health and safety. Why do law-abiding Americans have to pay $200, submit a federal application, and jump through a series of legal hoops just to purchase a single silencer? Besides, most of us shoot a lot more than at quarterly firearms qualifications, so our hearing is at serious risk. One reader pointed out that suppressors are safety devices for the ATF but are considered a privilege for those of us who aren’t ATF agents. Unfortunately, he is 100% correct. The ATF is completely wrong in its reasoning. We can all agree that suppressors offer a tremendous boon to health and safety, but shouldn’t civilians receive the same benefits as our lowliest federal agents? We should be able to purchase them anywhere, anytime we want, without any federal forms, waiting periods or especially $200 fees. Doesn’t the American public deserve the same level of health and safety that ATF agents receive, especially since we’re already funding theirs through our tax dollars? If the ATF is correct and suppressors are true health and safety devices, why isn’t there one included in the box with every new gun purchase? The ATF already requires gunmakers to include padlocks and keys with every new sale. Why not suppressors, too? Why do American citizens have to take second place to federal agents? Don’t we have the same right to safeguard our own health and safety? H.R.404 – Hearing Protection Act Just four months ago, Congressman Ben Cline (R-VA) reintroduced the Hearing Protection Act (HPA), which was designed to reduce “the overly burdensome barriers required to purchase a firearm suppressor to ease access for law-abiding citizens simply trying to obtain the hearing protection they need.” “Americans who enjoy hunting and target shooting should be able to do so safely and legally without facing burdensome government regulations,” Rep. Cline said. “The Hearing Protection Act will reclassify suppressors, making it easier for law-abiding gun owners to protect their hearing while enjoying recreational activities. It’s time to ensure that our Second Amendment rights are upheld, allowing responsible citizens to enjoy their freedoms without unnecessary obstacles.” As it stands now, Cline’s bill has 76 cosponsors, and every single one is a Republican. The bill was assigned to the Committee on Ways and Means, and the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period of time that will be determined by the Speaker of the House, The bill drew strong support from the gun community, including the American Suppressor Association (ASA), the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the National Rifle Association (NRA), and the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation (CSF). While representatives from all of the organizations were quoted in the bill’s press release, no one said anything better or more relevant than Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF’s senior vice-president and general counsel. “Congressman Cline’s Hearing Protection Act will have the federal government recognize firearm suppressors for what they are. These are accessories to a firearm that make recreational shooting and hunting a safer experience,” Keane said. “These safety devices reduce the report of a firearm to a level that won’t cause instant and permanent hearing damage. Despite Hollywood’s depictions, they do not mask the sound of a firearm. The focus should be on removing barriers to safe and responsible use of firearms and dedicating resources to ensuring firearms are safeguarded from those who should never possess them. Strict regulatory control of firearm accessories, and the parts of those accessories that have no bearing on the function of a firearm, is unnecessary and not the wisest use of federal resources. NSSF thanks Congressman Cline for his leadership for ensuring safe and responsible use of firearms and dedicating necessary resources where they are most needed.” The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn’t be possible without you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support pro-gun stories like this.
