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.
Why is the Glock pistol not available to regular citizens? Gregg Kielma Truth or Not? Your THOUGHTS. There are only a few Glock pistols that are not obtainable. Glock 18, a mythical selective fire factory pistol. I’ve been told by people that should know that it never existed for sale in the US. There are non-factory original modified selective fire Glocks. But that’s another story. The G18C is for LEO and military only. Glock 7 , “ ceramic guns that cost more than you make in a month” fictional, never existed. The Glock 25 and 28 are not allowed in the US because they are made solely in Europe and can't be imported. Their rating on the ATF points system is too low to pass import because of the Gun Control Act of 1968. Other than some standard capacity magazines that the left think are WMDs, all Glocks are available to background checked , law abiding citizens of the US.
Marijuana and Firearm Ownership (Source: TFP File Photo)© Tampa Free Press Says Gregg Kielma an FFL and Firearms instructor, “if you are carrying a gun and intoxicated with alcohol or marijuana in your system, you have no business owning a firearm. Plain and simple. Shame on you. Think people, THINK! Lets take a look! The Supreme Court announced Monday that it will consider whether individuals who regularly use marijuana can legally own firearms, taking on a new Second Amendment challenge following its landmark 2022 ruling that expanded gun rights. The case, United States v. Hemani, centers on a federal law that prohibits gun possession by anyone who is an "unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance." The Justice Department, under President Donald Trump's administration, is appealing a lower court's decision that tossed out a felony charge against Texas resident Ali Danial Hemani. Hemani was charged after authorities found a gun in his home, and he admitted to being a regular cannabis user. The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that the blanket ban on gun ownership for illegal drug users was unconstitutional as applied to Hemani, based on the Supreme Court's new standard that gun restrictions must align with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. However, the appellate court noted that the law could still be used against people who are armed and intoxicated at the same time. The Justice Department is advocating for the ban, arguing that regular drug users pose a serious public safety risk and that the restriction is a justifiable measure. Attorneys for Hemani counter that the broadly written federal law places millions of Americans at risk of technical violations, especially as nearly half of states have legalized marijuana for recreational use, even though it remains illegal under federal law. The Court's decision will serve as a crucial test for applying its 2022 ruling, which requires gun laws to have a strong grounding in historical tradition. 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. Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox.
NRA, Other Second Amendment Groups Target NFA With Yet Another Lawsuit Mark Chesnut A coalition of gun-rights organizations has taken another step in the effort to dismantle the National Firearms Act (NFA). On October 9, the National Rifle Association (NRA), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and American Suppressor Association (ASA) filed another lawsuit challenging the 1934 law. At issue is whether the law is even applicable now that the $200 tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns (SBSs) and any other weapons (AOWs), as defined by the law, was removed in President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill.” In the latest lawsuit, Jensen v. ATF, filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, plaintiffs argue that since the tax has been eliminated, the NFA’s registration regime can no longer be justified under Congress’s taxing power—nor any other authority granted under Article I of the Constitution. “The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (“BBB”), signed into law by the President on July 4, 2025, eliminated the making and transfer taxes on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns and NFA-defined “any other weapons,” while leaving the registration requirements intact,” the complaint states. “In other words, individuals no longer have to pay taxes for making and transferring most firearms under the NFA, but the firearms are still required to be registered and are subject to the ‘web of regulation’ that was designed to ‘aid enforcement’ of the NFA’s (now-extinct) tax. This regulatory regime no longer comports with Congress’s constitutionally enumerated powers.”
Jay "Hypocrite" Jones an Evil Leader Gun Control Hypocrisy: Silence When Their Own Push Violence The gun control lobby has spent decades preaching about “ending gun violence.” But when one of their own openly fantasizes about murdering a political opponent—and his children—the silence is deafening. Recent revelations from text messages sent by Jay Jones, the Democratic candidate for Virginia Attorney General, have shaken even the most cynical observers in Richmond. Jones, then a member of the Virginia House of Delegates, sent grotesque messages wishing death upon his political rival, Republican Speaker Todd Gilbert, and his children. “Three people, two bullets. Gilbert, Hitler, and Pol Pot. Gilbert gets two bullets to the head,” Jones texted to Republican Delegate Carrie Coyner in 2022. When confronted, Jones doubled down stating that he “wished” the Speaker’s children would be shot and “die in their mother’s arms.” These are not the words of a random internet troll. They came from a Democratic candidate for the Commonwealth’s top law enforcement position—and someone funded heavily by the nation’s leading gun control organizations. Everytown, Brady, and Giffords: Cash and Complicity It’s not surprising that Jones was backed by the same groups that constantly push for “commonsense gun safety.” The Hypocrisy Everytown for Gun Safety, the Michael Bloomberg-funded political juggernaut, dropped $200,000 into his campaign. They called him a “gun sense candidate” and an “advocate for safer communities.” Since Jones’ violent texts came to light, Everytown’s leadership—including John Feinblatt, a prolific social media user—has said nothing. Not a tweet. Not a statement. Not even a quiet retraction. Brady PAC, meanwhile, quietly deleted its press release endorsing Jones, scrubbed his name from its website, and offered the weakest possible condemnation: “Violent rhetoric has no place in our political process.” No mention of Jones. No withdrawal of support. Just damage control. Giffords PAC, founded by former Rep. Gabby Giffords, still has its endorsement of Jones live on its website—yes, the same organization born from a tragedy involving political gun violence. Moms Demand Silence: The hypocrisy doesn’t end there.
FBI Continues To Publish Inaccurate Data On Armed Citizens Stopping Active Shooters Mark Chestnut Few gun owners were surprised when we learned that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) under President Joe Biden had fudged the numbers when reporting active shooters stopped by armed citizens. Now, however, the Trump Administration FBI is continuing the practice, far underreporting the number of incidents where armed citizens are the real heroes. According to an October 2 report by John Lott posted at realclearinvestigatiins.com, the past trend of the FBI underreporting armed citizens who stopped active shooters continues to be a problem. And Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), said it’s not just a small discrepancy; the FBI is grossly underreporting the numbers. “Even though the FBI acknowledged the issue at the time, it never corrected the error involving the politically fraught issue,” Lott wrote. “In the years since, the problem has only gotten worse. Since RCI’s 2022 article, the FBI has acknowledged just three additional incidents of armed good Samaritans stopping active shooters from 2022 to 2024, and none in the last two years. In contrast, the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), which I head, has documented 78 such cases over that same period—a 26-fold difference.” The FBI defines active shooter incidents as those in which an individual kills or attempts to kill people in a public place, excluding shootings that are related to other criminal activity, such as robbery or fighting over drug turf. They include instances from one person being shot at and missed all the way up to a mass public shooting. “In 2022, the FBI reported that only 11 of the 252 active shooter incidents it identified for the period 2014-2021, or 4.4%, were stopped by an armed citizen,” Lott wrote. “However, an analysis by my organization identified a total of 281 active shooter incidents during that same period and found that 41 of them—or 14.6%—were stopped by an armed citizen.” As Lott further pointed out, the FBI report compiled for the Biden administration for 2023 and 2024 contains worse errors. “It asserts that armed civilians stopped none of the 72 active shooting cases it identified,” he wrote. “The CPRC, by contrast, identified 121 active shooter cases—45 of which were ultimately halted by armed civilians. Those incidents included eight cases that likely would have resulted in mass public shootings with four or more people murdered.” Ultimately, Lott said that the FBI has the ability to set the record straight in at least some cases, providing a clearer view of remedies to crime. “But its unwillingness to correct errors—or its efforts to fix them on the sly, as RCI reported last year—and improve its methodology raises more concerns. Its shortcomings regarding armed citizens thwarting active shooters illuminate many of these problems. Lott’s report at realclearinvestigations.com also delves into the dangerous fallacy of so-called “gun-free” zones. Those interested in learning more about the FBI’s underreporting of armed heroes and the danger of “gun-free” zones should give it a good read.
If I legally carry a firearm and someone is robbing a store I'm in, can I draw the weapon if the robber has a knife? If no shots are fired, is this legal? From Jim Z an avid reader of the blog. It depends on your political climate in your state, and the laws where this takes place. Let’s use New York City: You’re carrying a firearm. Do you have a NYC-issued permit to do so? If not, you just bagged yourself five years in jail. NYC recognizes NO OTHER firearms permit, even those issued by New York STATE, as valid, within city limits. You brought a GUN to a KNIFE fight. You’re using a MORE deadly weapon than your opponent. That’s known as “escalation of force”, and it kills any futile attempt you make at a self-defense plea. You DREW your gun. You committed “menacing with a deadly weapon”, even though NEITHER of you did ANYTHING . Because YOU have a GUN , and HE has only a KNIFE, YOU are the guilty party. Using a weapon of ANY kind, except for your bare hands, to defend yourself, is illegal in New York City, thanks to many decades of Democrat rule, and the mindless citizens that keep voting them into office.
Bradenton man cleared of assault charge using ‘stand your ground’ defense Credit: WWSB Sarasota/Bradenton Florida BRADENTON, Fla. (WWSB) - Charges have been dismissed against a Bradenton man accused of starting a gunfight that wounded his girlfriend and himself during a domestic dispute, Manatee County Court Judge Frederick Mercurio accepted Kevin Armstrong’s “Stand Your Ground” defense Monday and will dismiss the charges of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Mercurio ruled that Armstrong’s fear of harm was well-founded, even if his actions were not the wisest. “The better practice would have been for you to call the police, stay in your house and not go out there with a gun,” Mercurio said. “My legal conclusion is that Mr. Armstrong was reasonably believing that be needed to use or threatened to use force in order to prevent is imminent death or his great bodily harm.” Armstrong’s attorney, Jon Weiffenbach, told ABC7 Monday that the charges will be dismissed as soon as the court enters an order. “For all intents and purposes, this case is over,” he told ABC7 via email. The arrest report According to the arrest report, a 911 call was logged around 8 p.m. from the Sunny Shores Mobile Home Park on 116th Street West. According to the Manatee County Sherriff’s Office, an argument broke out between Armstrong and his girlfriend, Caitlin Lipke, 33, at their home in the park. Lipke left the residence and met two men, Cole Banyas and Dylan Taylor, who used a golf cart to accompany her back to the home so she could retrieve her dog and personal items. The arrest report noted Banyas and Taylor were both armed with “a myriad of weapons, including long guns and pistols.” When they arrived, deputies say another argument ensued and Armstrong had armed himself with a shotgun. Banyas and Taylor told deputies Armstrong began shooting at them and they retuned fire, sending 9 to 10 rounds toward Armstrong and the house. Lipke is shot in the chest during the melee, deputies noted, saying in their report “she may have inadvertently been hit by Dylan while he was trying to protect her from Kevin.” Lipke and her friends retreated on the golf cart to a nearby intersection where they called 911. The motion to dismiss Armstrong filed a motion to dismiss the charge Sept. 16. In that motion, Armstrong said one of the two men with Lipke phoned him, saying they were coming to retrieve Lipke’s belongings, “and if he didn’t cooperate they were going to kill him,” the motion says. After arming themselves, they drove a golf cart to Armstrong’s home. Lipke shoved Armstrong, “and Cole Banyas and Dylan Taylor displayed their firearms in a threatening manner while still in the golf cart.” As Likpe walked toward the golf cart, Armstrong fired a single shotgun blast into the air as a warning. Taylor then returned fire, striking Likpe in the breasts and unloading the rest of the magazine into Armstrong’s house, shooting Armstrong in the foot. The motion to dismiss argued Armstrong had the right to defend himself “against the alleged victim’s imminent use of unlawful force OR to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.” The motion also argued the burden of proof is on the state to prove by “clear and convincing evidence” that a defendant is not entitled to full immunity. It also argues “the court may not deny a motion simply because factual disputes exist. “Wherefore, because the defendant acted in self-defense as set forth herein, he is immune from prosecution based upon the Stand Your Ground law and this case must be dismissed,” the motion concluded.
Can I own a gun if I have a very old felony? Over ten years? Federally, no. In at least one state, yes, provided you don’t get it from a Federally-licensed dealer, and you always keep it in your home. Texas state law criminalizes “felons in possession”, but only if they possess the weapon within 10 years of the full completion of their sentence including probation/parole, and/or if the weapon is possessed outside the home. So theoretically a felon 10 years passed his sentence, including parole, can own a gun and keep it in his home for his own defense. EDIT: the law has changed since this post, to reduce the term to 5 years after completion of incarceration and/or supervised release. Under Federal law, however, a person in possession of a firearm who has been convicted of any crime punishable by more than a year in jail is committing a Federal crime worth ten in the pen, no matter how long ago the conviction was. The Feds usually have better things to do than bust ex-felons, much to the frustration of local police in many cases, but if you draw attention to yourself or commit any other crime the Feds are more willing to prosecute, the gun possession is an additional 10-year gimme. If the felony is that old and you’ve stayed out of trouble and built a respectable life since getting out, you can avoid Federal problems by petitioning the court for a restoration of civil rights. Basically, the court says that you’ve demonstrated yourself sufficiently rehabilitated that you should no longer have the limitations on your rights that come with being an ex-con. That’s typically something you must show you have earned; most judges won’t just sign that kind of order as a matter of course, and it’s largely their discretion to do so at all. Also understand that the felony and the expungement or restoration order don’t just automatically cancel out in the NICS system used for background checks. The fact you have a felony record will red-flag any 4473 form submitted by an FFL in your name. Theoretically, the idea is that the person processing the application on the NICS side looks through the full record and will find the restoration order and determine it quashes the felony conviction, but if they miss it you will be denied, and there’s a lengthy, time-consuming and expensive process to make sure your NICS records are being properly interpreted (and there’s no penalty to the FBI that runs NICS even if you prove you were falsely denied; you get a “sorry, we’ll try to do better next time” and they really won’t). One option to avoid these headaches, after you’re gotten your conviction taken care of, is to apply for a carry license in one of the 25 states where that license is an acceptable substitute for NICS checks. You go through a comprehensive background check one time (where you usually get the chance to clue the agency into the existence of the restoration order), you take the class, get fingerprinted, maybe pass a practical qualification (you’ll have to rent or borrow a suitable firearm), then once you have the permit, you still have to fill out the 4473 but the FFL doesn’t have to send it to NICS; they write your license number on the form as the proof of background check, you pay them and you have a gun.
Can I dry fire my Ruger 10/22 ? How worried should I be about damaging the gun? I've heard dry fire hurts rimfires. All guns, snap caps should be used. The reason, it keeps the firing pin from becoming damaged. Some firearms like the Ruger 10-22 are not as easily damaged by dry fire. Dry-firing rimfires can damage the chamber face as the firing pin hits it instead of a cartridge. However, the Ruger 10/22 is an exception—its manual states that dry-firing is safe, thanks to a firing-pin stop that protects the breech face. While you shouldn't regularly dry-fire rimfires in general, the 10/22 is designed to handle it.
Can a felon shoot a gun at a gun range? Gregg Kielma Range Owner Gregg Kielma firearms range owner says no. If you're a felon, you cannot enjoy the shooting sports at our range. You lost your constitutional rights to fire firearms or own a firearm or ammo. Do not do it. It's federal law. It's not my law but the federal government. Please don't lie to us on the forms you need to fill out before you shoot. DON'T DO IT! Technically, prohibited persons could lie on waivers at ranges to shoot with friends, unless caught by law enforcement or revealing themselves. However, this is a felony from the moment they handle a gun or ammunition; if discovered, they can be arrested and possibly jailed. Signed waivers act as admissions of their status. Being able to do something does not mean it's right.
