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.
Being Prepared for the 2026 Hurricane Season By Gregory Kielma, Tactical K Training & Firearms The 2026 Hurricane Season is shaping up to be another year where preparation isn’t optional it’s essential. Florida has seen record heat, rising insurance pressures, rapid population growth, and increasingly unpredictable storm behavior. None of that is meant to create fear. It’s meant to reinforce a simple truth: preparedness gives you control, confidence, and options when the weather turns. Whether you’re protecting a home, a business, or a family, the goal is the same build layers of readiness before the first storm forms. Start With Awareness and a Plan Storms don’t give you time to “figure it out later.” Your plan should be written, practiced, and known by everyone in the household or workplace. Key elements of a solid plan: Where will you go if evacuation becomes necessary Multiple routes out of your area A communication plan if cell networks fail A designated out‑of‑state contact A plan for pets, elderly family members, and anyone with medical needs For businesses, include: Who secures the building Who handles digital backups Who communicates closures and reopening A plan removes panic. It replaces it with action. Strengthen Your Home or Business Before the First Storm Florida structures take a beating every year. Small improvements now prevent major losses later. Exterior protection: Inspect your roof for loose shingles or soft spots Clear gutters and drainage paths Trim trees and remove dead limbs Install or test shutters Reinforce garage doors—one of the most common failure points Interior protection: Surge protection for critical electronics Elevate valuables and important documents Know how to shut off water, power, and gas If you own a business, walk your property as if you were a storm: What can break? What can blow away? What can flood? Fix those points now. Build a Realistic, Usable Supply Kit For Your Home or Business A hurricane kit isn’t about stockpiling, it’s about independence. After a major storm, help may take hours or days to reach your area. For homes and families: Water: 1 gallon per person per day (minimum 3–7 days) Non‑perishable food Medications and medical supplies Flashlights, headlamps, and batteries Battery bank for phones First aid kit Copies of important documents Cash in small bills Tools, gloves, tarps, duct tape For businesses: Backup power for essential systems Printed employee contact lists Hard copies of insurance documents A plan for securing inventory and equipment Preparedness isn’t about fear it’s about not being dependent on luck. Protect Your Digital Life In 2026, digital readiness is just as important as physical readiness. Back up important files to the cloud and an external drive Photograph your home, business, and valuables for insurance Store digital copies of IDs, insurance policies, and receipts Keep chargers, power banks, and a small solar panel if possible When the power goes out, your digital preparation keeps you moving. Understand Post‑Storm Safety Most injuries happen after the storm, not during it. Be cautious with: Downed power lines Flooded roads Carbon monoxide from generators Unstable structures Contaminated water If you evacuated, don’t rush home. Wait for official clearance. Your safety comes first. Mindset: Prepared, Not Paranoid Preparedness is a discipline, not a reaction. It’s the same mindset we teach in every Tactical K class awareness, planning, and responsible action. A hurricane is a natural event. Your response is a choice. When you prepare early, you protect: Your family Your property Your business Your peace of mind And you set an example for your community. Kielma’s Parting Shot The 2026 Hurricane Season will bring challenges, just like every season. But Floridians are resilient, and preparation is part of our way of life. Start now. Strengthen your home, your business, and your plan. Build your layers of safety before the first storm forms. If you need help building a plan, creating a checklist, or preparing your family or business, Tactical K Training is here to support you with practical, real‑world guidance.
Why You Should Never Travel Through High Water
Convicted Felon Sentenced to 87 Months in Trafficking Nine Firearms, Including to Buyer Who Said He Was ‘At War’ Thursday, April 30, 2026 U.S. Attorney's Office, District of Columbia WASHINGTON - Brandon Smith, 34, a previously convicted felon residing in the District of Columbia, was sentenced today in U.S. District Court to 87 months in prison for conspiring to traffic at least nine firearms to a prohibited buyer over the course of six months, announced U.S. Attorney Jeanine Ferris Pirro. “Brandon Smith was already on supervised probation for a violent felony when he chose to traffic firearms, and he continued even after being told the buyer intended to use them for violence,” said U.S. Attorney Pirro. “Over the course of six months, he arranged the sale of at least nine guns—including one with an obliterated serial number—to a prohibited individual. This was not a momentary lapse in judgment, but a sustained and deliberate effort to arm someone who could not legally possess firearms. My office remains committed to holding accountable those who endanger our communities by trafficking illegal guns.” On Jan. 9, 2026, Smith pleaded guilty before Judge Howell to conspiracy to commit trafficking in firearms. In addition to the 87-month prison term, Judge Howell ordered Smith to serve three years of supervised release. Federal prosecutors had requested a 108-month prison term. According to court papers, beginning in November 2023, ATF opened an investigation after a confidential source reported that Smith, then on supervised probation for a violent felony, was actively advertising firearms for sale by texting photographs of guns to prospective buyers, including individuals with prior felony convictions. During the next six months, Smith sold or arranged the sale of nine firearms to a buyer on six separate occasions. During the transactions, Smith sold his own personal carry firearm on multiple occasions when a supplier failed to deliver, then purchased a replacement for himself afterward. In early January 2024, as Smith and the buyer discussed an upcoming transaction, the buyer told Smith he needed the firearms because he was “at war” after his cousin had been killed. Smith proceeded with the sale. The buyer had also told Smith he was serving a criminal justice sentence at the time of the transactions. Smith acknowledged that he, too, was “on papers.” Smith arranged a total of six transactions from Nov. 30, 2023, through May 30, 2024, resulting in the sale of nine firearms. At least one of the firearms had its serial number obliterated. On Oct. 26, 2024, MPD officers conducted a traffic stop on the 1600 block of 16th Street SE and found Smith in the front passenger seat of a parked vehicle. Officers observed open containers of alcohol and discovered a satchel at his feet. Inside the satchel, in plain view, was a loaded Glock Model 19X 9mm handgun with a round in the chamber and 16 additional rounds in the magazine. The bag also contained a bank card and government-issued identification in Smith’s name. Smith has prior convictions for Simple Assault (2011), Attempted Robbery (2013), and Robbery and Possession of a Firearm during a Crime of Violence (2016), for which he was sentenced to five years in prison. He was serving a term of supervised probation from the 2016 conviction at the time of the firearms trafficking conspiracy. This investigation was conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Washington Field Office, and the Metropolitan Police Department. The matter was prosecuted by Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Brendan M. Horan. Convicted Felon Sentenced to 87 Months in Trafficking
Husband and Wife, and a Third Individual Charged with Firearms Trafficking
33 U.S. House Members Urge Trump To Restore Gun Rights, Name A Pro-2A AG
Maryland Pistol Ban Faces Backlash From Firearms Industry
Lake City Strike Enters Week Three—Here’s What It Means
Marijuana and The Law: The Laws are Changing But When and How? Gregg Kielma 4/27/2026 Many people are confused about how marijuana use interacts with federal firearm law, especially as more states legalize cannabis. Under federal statute 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), anyone who is an unlawful user of a controlled substance is prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition, and marijuana remains a Schedule I controlled substance, for now, under federal law even in states where it’s legal. That means regular, ongoing marijuana use can place someone in a prohibited category, though recent ATF rule changes require evidence of consistent, current use rather than a single incident. At the same time, courts are actively reviewing how this law applies, and the Supreme Court is considering cases that challenge whether the federal ban is constitutional when applied to marijuana users. The legal landscape is evolving and enforcement varies, concerns about someone’s behavior are best handled by focusing on safety, communication, and lawful reporting of specific dangerous actions—not assumptions about their private habits. If someone is acting in a way that poses an immediate threat to themselves or others, contacting local authorities to report the behavior—not their status—is the appropriate and lawful step. Gregg Kielma
Gun Rights Group Files Brief To Rebut DOJ’s Misleading Arguments In NFA Challenge Mark Chesnut Arguments by the Trump Administration’s Department of Justice for continuing the registration portion of the National Firearms Act (NFA) now that the tax has been eliminated have drawn the ire of a major gun-rights group. Congress killed the $200 tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns (SBSs), and any other weapons (AOWs) when it passed President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill last summer. Gun-rights groups immediately filed a handful of lawsuits challenging the remainder of the NFA, and the DOJ is unexpectedly fighting those lawsuits, despite the administration’s promise to battle anti-Second Amendment laws. In one of the cases, Brown v. ATF, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) recently filed a supplemental reply brief countering the federal government’s arguments in support of the NFA. “This reply brief gave us the perfect opportunity to rebut the government’s arguments in support of the NFA,” Bill Sack, SAF director of legal operations, said in a news release announcing the filing. “We were encouraged the court requested targeted supplemental briefing that addressed key elements of the proper Second Amendment analysis. In our principle brief, we laid out in detail why the answer to every question posed supported our position. And now with this reply brief, we have driven home the point and dismantled each of the government’s arguments to the contrary.” In the brief, FPC argued that the government used incorrect reasoning in its argument about which arms are “in common use” and which are not. And in doing so, pointed out the government’s inability to address the second Bruen standard.
Why Do People Enjoy “The Firearm Sports” and why "Do People Want to Take Our Firearms Away From Law Abiding, Responsible People" Gregg Kielma Tactical K Training and Firearms 4/26/2026 Kielma states, "This debate has lasted for years. The gun control community wants to end our sport and hobby because, in their view: • We're bad people for owning guns. • We're irresponsible. • They don't want anyone armed. • They're afraid of what they don't understand. • They don't appreciate shooting as a sport." I do know this, people enjoy firearm sports because they offer a rare combination of discipline, focus, and personal growth that few activities can match. Whether it’s precision rifle, trap, or action shooting, these sports demand calm breathing, steady hands, and clear mind skills that build confidence and carry over into everyday life. The community is another major draw: responsible gun owners tend to be safety driven, respectful, and eager to help newcomers succeed. For many, the range becomes a place of mentorship, family bonding, and lifelong learning. At the same time, debates about firearms often create tension, and some lawmakers and advocacy groups argue for stricter regulations because they believe it will reduce crime or increase public safety. Others, however, feel these efforts unfairly target the very people who follow the law, train regularly, and store their firearms responsibly. From that perspective, it can feel as though responsible owners are being lumped together with criminals, even though their behavior, mindset, and values are completely different. This disconnects between those who see firearms as a disciplined sport and personal responsibility, and those who view them primarily through the lens of risk drives much of the ongoing debate. Gregg Kielma
