Billionares and Guns...Money Talks

Gregory Kielma • Aug 06, 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.

Guns and High School Games Not a good Combination

By Gregory Kielma • 04 Oct, 2024
Man accused of trying to smuggle gun into football game Gregg Kielma Just another ill-informed person that doesn’t know the “rules”. Take the CCW class offered by Tactical K Training and Firearms. Know the law and know your rights says FFL, Firearms Instructor, Gunsmith and First Aid Fundamentals Instructor Gregg Kielma… Read carefully, know the laws and your right or go directly to jail, no get out of jail free card. THINK! A Manatee County man is in custody after detectives say he tried to sneak a gun into a high school football game. According to Bradenton Police, Rasheim Alexander Reckley was walking into the Manatee High School football game on Sept. 30. A metal detector alerted deputies to the presence of something in his satchel. School guardians pulled him to the side and searched the bag where they found a magazine. Further inspection found a weapon. When officers asked Reckley why he had the weapon, he told officers he had CCW permit and didn’t know it was illegal to carry a weapon onto school grounds. He is in the Manatee County jail.

Assault Weapon no such thing. You have been brainwashed

By Gregory Kielma • 03 Oct, 2024
What would be the impact of an "assault weapon" ban passing? What would happen if an "assault weapon" ban does not pass? Gregg Kielma Assault Weapon? no such thing.....please read on says Gregg Kielma. If an “assault weapon” ban DID pass, then Honest Law-Abiding Citizens (the people who do NOT commit deadly shooting crimes) will give up possession of and NOT own guns that are used in fewer than 500 homicides out of about 20,000 US homicides Every Single Year! And while Honest Law-Abiding Citizens are NOT owning and ARE giving up their “so-called” assault weapons, criminals (the people who DO COMMIT deadly shootings) WILL STILL possess any and every type of gun they choose, because they do NOT obey laws, including bans! “Ban does not pass?” If a ban does not pass, things will basically be the same. Liberal judges, Liberal District Attorneys and Liberal Defense Attorneys will continue to enable criminals with lengthy arrest records to freely walk the streets and commit even more crimes! If anyone disagrees with my assertion about Liberal Judges and Attorneys, I suggest you watch/listen to the news and educate yourself. Everyday criminals with lengthy records are arrested, causing law abiding citizens to ask, “Why was a career criminal, like that, free and on the streets to begin with?”

California Glock Ownership Nonsense

By Gregory Kielma • 03 Oct, 2024
Is my Glock Gen 4 9mm legal in California? If not, Why? Gregg Kielma Depends. You can’t buy one from a California dealer because they aren’t deemed a “safe” handgun. Mainly because the manufacturer has to pay for that determination every time a gun changes in any way including changing the color. Glock, like several companies, stopped paying the state for its roster shakedown so Glocks after Gen 3 cannot be sold in California. They want “safe” guns there, after all. Strangely, if you are law enforcement apparently all guns are safe. Special clothing issued by the state overrides the safe handgun roster. You can buy any handgun new from a dealer with the imprimatur of the state behind you. Also, if you legally owned the gun out of state and, for some insane reason, moved into the state of California, your handgun apparently inherits “safe” status. Up to and including allowing you to sell it to another California resident as that one-time safety is now transferable as well. But the new Glock in the box? No way. Unsafe as it comes. So if you own the Gen 4 already, it’s legal. If you don’t, it isn’t legal unless you have a badge or have a recently moved in friend willing to sell you theirs. Then it magically becomes legal. No, I am not making any of this up. This is the actual law in the state of California as it applies to handguns.

Forced Enty... Know Your Rights,,, A once great City...now a shit town...chicago

By Gregory Kielma • 02 Oct, 2024
Defending Against Forced Entry USCCA/Gregg Kielma In a quiet Chicago neighborhood, where witnesses say “nothing ever happens," an 80-year-old man answered a knock at his door and found a young man and a woman waiting for him. The duo pushed their way in, demanding the homeowner give them money and then assaulting him. The bigger, younger and stronger male beat the homeowner badly, putting him in critical condition when he was later hospitalized. But the gentleman fought back. Despite being beaten nearly to unconsciousness, the defender retrieved his firearm and shot the attacker once in the chest. The woman fled. Both intruders were arrested. The attacker was later hospitalized and was reportedly in critical condition from his gunshot wound. In Review: No two self-defense incidents are ever the same. From what we know from the reports of this incident, here are my key takeaways: Legal: The defender faced a pair of deadly threats. The robbers had both the intention and the means to critically injure him … and did so. In addition, they were engaged in a felony. This case appears to be an appropriate use of force. Tactical: First, our defender had a firearm available and in a location he could get to under stress. But that stress would not have been present had he done two things: installed cameras to monitor the front door and refused to open the door. In most cases, a home invader will not invade if you make it difficult. Additional barriers such as dead bolts and an alarm system would also have been helpful. Training: Our defender learned the hard way that in today’s world, the rule needs to be “pants on, gun on.” Having to retrieve a firearm once a fight has started is not a viable solution for anyone, but particularly not for an 80-year-old gentleman. How important is it to have quick access to your firearm in a home-invasion scenario? What are effective ways to ensure your firearm is both secure and accessible?

Steal Firearms...We'll Find and Prosecute YOU!

By Gregory Kielma • 28 Sep, 2024
Winter Garden Man Who Backed Vehicle Into Business And Stole Six Firearms Pleads Guilty Friday, September 27, 2024 U.S. Attorney's Office, Middle District of Florida Orlando, FL – United States Attorney Roger B. Handberg announces that Edward Vincenzo Camacho (20, Winter Garden) has pleaded guilty to theft of a firearm from a federal firearms licensee. Camacho faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in federal prison. A sentencing date has not yet been set. According to the plea agreement, just before midnight on August 18, 2023, Camacho backed a sports utility vehicle into the front of a federal firearms licensee business. After smashing the front door and wall of the business, Camacho entered the store and broke a glass case where multiple firearms were housed. Camacho stole six firearms and then fled in his vehicle. Camacho was apprehended less than two hours later after a foot pursuit with law enforcement. During the foot pursuit, Camacho was seen tossing three firearms onto the ground, two of which were confirmed to be stolen from the federal firearms licensee business. This case was investigated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Winter Park Police Department. It is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Stephanie Alexa McNeff. This case is part of the 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 for occurring in the first place, setting focused and strategic enforcement priorities, and measuring the results. Updated September 27, 2024

Kamala Harris Owns Firearms or Does She?

By Gregory Kielma • 21 Sep, 2024
Kamala Owns a Firearm or Does She? By Larry Keane The first presidential debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump didn’t provide voters with much regarding a topic that is one of the most important issues to them as they consider which candidate they’ll support on Nov. 5: the Second Amendment. President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris have operated for three and a half years as the most hostile presidential administration against the firearm industry and the right to keep and bear arms. The vice president is talking on the campaign trail like she’ll continue that approach. Many believe she would be even more antigun, anti-industry as president than she is as the Biden administration’s “gun czar” leading The White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention that is staffed by Everytown’s former top lobbyist. It took more than 90 minutes before there was even a mention of firearms and it was the candidates who brought it up, not the transparently biased moderators. Voters will be looking for more as they rightfully have serious concerns about what a potential Harris administration would mean for law-abiding Americans and their Constitutional rights to purchase and possess firearms. Surprise Gun Owner? ABC News debate moderator Linsey Davis referenced the vice president’s flip-flopping on mandatory gun buybacks, which amount to confiscation, during one question that was more about changing policy positions generally than it was about the Second Amendment specifically. Near the end of the debate, Davis asked, “You wanted mandatory buybacks for assault weapons. Now your campaign says you don’t,” Davis said before asking Harris why so many of her policy positions had changed, according to The Reload. Vice President Harris didn’t address the question and was only forced to respond later to a criticism by former President Donald Trump warning voters that if elected, the vice president would have “a plan to confiscate everyone’s gun.” She jumped in with a comment that caught viewers’ attention. “And then this business about taking everyone’s guns away, Tim Walz and I are both gun owners,” Vice President Harris stated. “We’re not taking anyone’s guns away. So stop with the continuous lying about this stuff.” The vice president’s remark about being a gun owner drew attention. She practically never mentions being a gun owner in all her calls for more gun control and the only reference before is a glancing mention in a 2019 CNN interview. Not surprisingly, Second Amendment supporters were skeptical of her statement. “So now Harris owns a gun? Ha, I’d love to know what kind/caliber and how often she trains with it,” competitive shooter, GunsOut TV founder and CNN commentator Shermichael Singleton posted on social media. Podcast host and former Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly jumped in, too. “KH: we’re not taking anyone’s guns away. Truth: She is literally on camera saying she supports a mandatory buy-back program.” Kyle Smith posted on X about the vice president’s track record on gun confiscation as well. “Um Harris did support mandatory gun confiscation aka ‘buybacks’ and the people deserve an explanation of why she has reversed course on this, ABC News.” Smith posted a Bloomberg News article after his comment with the headline “Kamala Harris Supports Mandatory Buyback of Assault Weapons.” Outkick founder and sports and political commentator Clay Travis also added some important questions in his post about the remark. “Kamala owns a gun? Where does she keep it? Aren’t they illegal in DC? Has she ever talked about having a gun before? Genuinely curious.” Pro-Second Amendment attorney Kostas Moros added a salient point. “Kamala Harris is why Californians couldn’t buy a modern handgun for a decade,” he posted. And Ashley St. Clair posted about the hypocrisy of VP Harris’ remark. “Kamala Harris just said Trump is lying about her support of a mandatory gun buyback because she ‘is a gun owner’ The reality is, Kamala will get to keep the guns protecting her while she forces you to turn yours in. But don’t listen to me, listen to Kamala herself,” she posted while linking to a video of the vice president. Crime Fact Check Earlier in the debate, former President Trump brought up the fact that voters were still very concerned about crime while attacking the Biden-Harris administration track record on law enforcement and keeping Americans safe in their communities. ABC News moderator David Muir jumped in to attempt to fact check the former president in real time, suggesting President Trump was wrong. “President Trump, as you know, the FBI says overall violent crime is actually coming down in this country,” Muir falsely suggested. The former President didn’t let it slip, either. “Excuse me, the FBI made defrauding statements. They didn’t include the worst cities,” former President Trump corrected. “They didn’t include the cities with the worst crime.” That’s true and the former president was correct in fact-checking Muir. NSSF has reported on this in detail – nearly a third of America’s cities where most of the crime is being committed are no longer reporting crime statistics to the FBI. It’s an important fact that deserved more attention in the debate as well as “self-defense” and keeping one’s family and home safe remains the top reason given for why Americans continue to buy firearms during an historic stretch. Record of Concern Americans who value their Second Amendment rights can make their voices heard at the ballot box on Nov. 5. There are estimates of 10 million hunters who remain unregistered to vote, and over 22 million Americans who purchased a firearm for the first time since the previous presidential election. That’s a tidal force in a close-polling election and NSSF urges everyone to #GUNVOTE.Vice President Kamala Harris has a 20-plus-year fervently antigun record. Her top surrogates still vouch that she supports gun confiscation, upending the U.S. Supreme Court with antigun justices, “reimagining” the Constitution and would be more radical on gun control than she is right now as partner in the Biden-Harris administration. Don’t Risk Your Rights. #GUNVOTE on Nov. 5.

Biden/Gun Shows and Joe's 5 Pinocchio's

By Gregory Kielma • 21 Sep, 2024
Did Biden falsely say that “you can buy whatever you want” at a gun show with “no background check”? Gregg Kielma Well, first you must know what you can buy at a gun show, right? Private sales - where the seller is not in the business of transacting guns. He has the inclination to sell something of his collection but doesn’t buy and sell guns as a primary means of getting a profit. Nope - no background check there in most states. But to say this is a gun show failure is flat wrong. A gun show is merely a convenient place to be selling a gun as that is where the buyers are. You don’t try to sell collectible beanie babies or postage stamps at a gun show, that’s not where the buyers are. The key here is that these are private sales using the convenience of a concentration of gun buyers. The last group is people selling because that’s their business. Those are DEALERS and as such must be FFLs and therefore must run a background check. The exception is in 22 states where the ATF says their carry permit is a good substitute for the NICS check. Texas is one such. For a dealer at a gun show Biden is lying. A check is required. So, what is the actual ratio of dealers to private sellers? About 99:1 from my observation. Perhaps 199:1. The reason is that a private vendor must rent a table and have alarmed cables securing his small inventory. To show one gun he must disconnect the cables, meaning for that interval none of his guns are alarmed, and can disappear in the crush of a crowd. Secondly, he really can’t have much of an inventory lest the ATF thinks he’s in the business of selling. Net result, given the competitive pricing of the other vendors, and cost of the table rental, he won’t sell enough to much cover his costs. So, Joe, you get 5 out of 5 Pinocchio’s. You twist the truth to fit your narrative. Shame on you.

ATF NEWS: President Trump Assassination Attempt

By Gregory Kielma • 21 Sep, 2024
Suspect at Trump International Golf Course Charged with Firearms Offenses Monday, September 16, 2024 Office of Public Affairs Ryan Wesley Routh, 58, of Hawaii, has been charged by a criminal complaint in the Southern District of Florida with firearms charges related to an incident at Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach on Sept. 15. Routh was charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and possession and receipt of a firearm with an obliterated serial number and made his initial appearance today before Magistrate Judge Ryon M. McCabe in the federal courthouse in West Palm Beach. A detention hearing has been scheduled for Sept. 23. The investigation remains ongoing. According to allegations in the criminal complaint, a Secret Service agent walking the golf course perimeter saw what appeared to be a rifle poking out of the tree line. After the agent fired a service weapon in the direction of the rifle, a witness saw a man later identified as Routh fleeing the area of the tree line. Routh was later apprehended by officers from the Martin County Sheriff’s Office, in coordination with the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office. The complaint alleges that in the area of the tree line from which Routh fled, agents found a digital camera, a backpack, a loaded SKS-style rifle with a scope and a black plastic bag containing food. The serial number on the rifle was obliterated. According to the complaint, Routh was convicted of felonies in North Carolina in December 2002 and March 2010. The FBI is leading the ongoing investigation. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the U.S. Secret Service are providing assistance. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida and the Counterterrorism Section of the Justice Department’s National Security Division are prosecuting the case. A criminal complaint is merely an allegation. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

ATF NEWS: Gun Trafficking from Ohio to Florida

By Gregory Kielma • 21 Sep, 2024
Ohio Man Sentenced For Making False Statements To Purchase Firearms And Unlawful Sale/Transfer Of Firearms To Juveniles Monday, September 16, 2024 U.S. Attorney's Office, Middle District of Florida Tampa, Florida – United States District Judge Steven D. Merryday has sentenced Gabriel Gladman (23, Akron, Ohio) to four years in federal prison for making false and fictitious statements to a federally licensed firearms dealer with the intent to purchase firearms, and unlawful sale/transfer of firearms to juveniles. Gladman was also ordered to forfeit the following: a Smith & Wesson (SD40) semi-automatic firearm, a Taurus G2 semi-automatic firearm, a Glock 26 semi-automatic firearm, a FMK 9C1 semi-automatic firearm, 2 - Taurus G3 semi-automatic firearms, and 2 - Tara TM-9X semi-automatic firearms which are traceable proceeds of the offense. According to court documents, on eight separate occasions between November 2022 and June 2023, Gladman provided false information to federally licensed firearm dealers in Tampa with the intent to purchase eight semi-automatic firearms. On six separate dates, Gladman sold/transferred some of those firearms to juveniles under the age of 18. It was determined that some of those firearms were used by the juveniles during violent crimes in Tampa. At the time of Gladman’s arrest in Ohio, he was found in possession of two additional firearms. This case was investigated by the Tampa Police Department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. It was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Maria Guzman. Assistant United States Attorney Suzanne Nebesky will handle the forfeiture. 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.

Kamala Harris and Firearm Confiscation

By Gregory Kielma • 11 Sep, 2024
Kamala Harris: Firearms and The Second Amendment. She Wants Are Guns. A Lying Democrat Can Never Be Trusted WASHINGTON — Vice President Kamala Harris surprised some viewers during her debate with Donald Trump when she said that she's a gun owner, raising the fact to counter her Republican opponent's accusation that she wants to confiscate firearms. “Tim Walz and I are both gun owners,” Harris said, referencing her running mate. “We’re not taking anybody’s guns away.” Harris previously talked about owning a gun in 2019 during her first campaign for president. “I am a gun owner, and I own a gun for probably the reason a lot of people do — for personal safety,” Harris previously said. “I was a career prosecutor.” At the time, her campaign said that Harris purchased a handgun years earlier and kept it locked up. A spokesperson did not provide any additional details when asked on Tuesday. The exchange about gun ownership came as Trump tried to paint Harris, who started her political career as a San Francisco district attorney, as radically liberal. “She is destroying our country,” he said. “She has a plan to defund the police. She has a plan to confiscate everybody’s gun. She has a plan to not allow fracking in Pennsylvania or anywhere else.” Harris rebutted each of Trump's allegations, adding that he should “stop with the continuous lying about this stuff.” Trump claims he wanted to send Harris a 'MAGA hat' for copying his policies Walz, the Minnesota governor, has also talked about gun ownership and boasted of his marksmanship. Republicans frequently describe Democrats as a threat to the Second Amendment, while Democrats describe their proposals as common sense measures to protect public safety. Harris has called for implementing universal background checks and expanding red flag laws to take away guns from people who are deemed dangerous or unstable. She also wants to ban so-called assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.
Show More
Share by: