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.
The Complex Smuggling Network TAMPA, Fla. - A Colombian national who masterminded a massive drug trafficking operation that smuggled over 43,000 kilograms of cocaine—valued at approximately $1.3 billion USD—into the United States was sentenced to 13 years and 4 months in federal prison last week in a Tampa courtroom. According to court documents, Gonzalez-Ortiz established and led the sophisticated drug trafficking organization from 2016 until 2023. The operation relied on a network of corrupt officials and airport personnel to move massive amounts of cocaine disguised in boxes of fruit onto commercial flights. U.S. District Judge Kathryn K. Mizelle handed down the sentence to Jorge Hernan Gonzalez-Ortiz, 49, of Colombia, who pleaded guilty to conspiring to import cocaine into the United States on January 14, 2025. The journey began at Alfonso Bonilla Aragón International Airport in Cali, Colombia. From there, the drug-laden flights were destined for Gustavo Rojas Pinilla International Airport in San Andrés Island, Colombia. The plea agreement details how the conspirators enlisted the aid of at least 20 corrupt Colombian police officers to facilitate the movement of the drugs. Once the cocaine reached San Andrés Island, the corrupt officers assisted in exporting the narcotics out of the airport, which were then smuggled by boat to either Nicaragua or Honduras. From Central America, the cocaine was transported through Mexico and into the United States via land routes. Inside the Operation The organization’s success hinged on key insiders at both airports: ・Airport Security: A security supervisor at the Cali airport was responsible for diverting security cameras away from external gates used to import the cocaine. ・Logistics & Personnel: The network included airport personnel who altered cargo manifests, as well as luggage cart drivers and warehouse employees who were responsible for loading and unloading the cocaine onto and from the commercial aircraft. Between 2016 and 2023, Gonzalez-Ortiz’s organization successfully smuggled cocaine onto at least 27 commercial flights in Cali. The Interception Investigators say the operation began to unravel on July 29, 2023, when Colombian National Police interdicted a shipment of 1,310 kilograms of cocaine after it was offloaded from a commercial aircraft in San Andrés Island. This seizure helped lead to the eventual charges and conviction of Gonzalez-Ortiz in the U.S.
A True Idiot: Lucien Alexandre Crooks Davenport Man’s Florida Keys Vacation Ends In Felony Arrest, Murder Threats Against Deputy Story by Maria Hernandez MONROE COUNTY, Fla. - A Davenport man with a previous felony record was arrested in the Florida Keys late Saturday after a traffic stop escalated into charges involving weapons possession and threats to kill a law enforcement officer and his family. Lucien Alexandre Crooks, 30, faces multiple charges, including possession of a concealed weapon by a convicted felon, resisting arrest, and threatening a law enforcement officer. According to deputies, the incident began at approximately 8:36 p.m. when a Sheriff’s Office Deputy stopped Crooks’ Nissan SUV near Mile Marker 100 on U.S. 1. The initial reason for the stop was Crooks’ failure to move over and slow down for another law enforcement officer who was conducting a separate traffic stop nearby. Upon questioning, the Deputy discovered Crooks was driving without a valid license. A subsequent search of the vehicle led to the discovery of an open bottle of tequila and a cup containing an alcoholic beverage near the driver’s seat. The situation worsened when a pair of brass knuckles with an attached knife was in Crooks’ pocket. Authorities confirmed that Crooks has two previous felony convictions in Florida, making the possession of such a weapon a serious felony offense. According to the Sheriff’s Office report, the suspect, Lucien Crooks , became volatile upon his arrest. While being transported to jail, Crooks repeatedly threatened to murder the arresting Deputy and his entire family. Bad move Luciferien... lolol you be a dumbass.
Secret Arsenal Shut Down In Florida: Jacksonville Man Gets Four Years For Explosives Cache Story by Maria Hernandez A Jacksonville man, Matthew Reid Davisson, 36, has been sentenced to four years and five months in federal prison for illegally possessing unregistered destructive devices. U.S. District Judge Marcia Morales Howard handed down the sentence after Davisson pleaded guilty on February 18, 2025. The investigation also revealed an unregistered firearm. One of Davisson’s family members surrendered a gun belonging to him, which was later identified as an unregistered machinegun with an unregistered homemade silencer attached to the barrel. Davisson’s arrest stems from an unrelated state charge on October 26, 2023. Following his arrest, the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office (JSO) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) received a tip that Davisson was storing large amounts of chemicals and possible grenades at his Jacksonville residence. A search of the home by law enforcement uncovered a significant cache of illegal materials, including: ・Two improvised explosive bombs ・One improvised explosive grenade ・Parts to readily assemble three additional improvised explosive grenades ・Quantities of homemade high explosives and detonators ・Large volumes of explosive precursor chemicals ・Homemade explosive manufacturing equipment None of these destructive devices were registered to Davisson in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR), a violation of federal law. The investigation also revealed an unregistered firearm. One of Davisson’s family members surrendered a gun belonging to him, which was later identified as an unregistered machinegun with an unregistered homemade silencer attached to the barrel. The case was the result of a joint investigation conducted by the ATF, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the JSO. Assistant United States Attorneys David B. Mesrobian and Rachel Lasry prosecuted the case.
Brazilian National Sentenced for Selling Firearms Without a License and Conspiracy Thursday, November 13, 2025 U.S. Attorney's Office, District of Massachusetts BOSTON – A Brazilian national unlawfully living in Milford was sentenced on Oct. 24, 2025 in federal court in Worcester for conspiracy and engaging in the business of selling firearms without a license. Rafaell Martins Ferreira, 28, was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Margaret R. Guzman to time-served (approximately 13 months) followed by two years of supervised release. The defendant is subject to deportation upon completion of the imposed sentence. In July 2025, Martins Ferreira pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to engage in the business of dealing firearms without a license and one count of engaging in the business of dealing firearms without a license. Between February and March 2024, Martins Ferreira sold two firearms to cooperating witnesses without the required license. In addition, Martins Ferreira indicated he had access to additional firearms. One of these firearms included a large capacity magazine (capable of holding more than 15 rounds of ammunition). United States Attorney Leah B. Foley; Thomas Greco, Special Agent in Charge of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Boston Field Division; Michael J. Krol, Special Agent in Charge of Homeland Security Investigations in New England; Patricia H. Hyde, Field Office Director, Boston, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Enforcement and Removal Operations; and Ketty Larco-Ward, Inspector in Charge of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service’s Boston Division made the announcement. Valuable assistance was provided by the Massachusetts State Police and the Milford Police Department. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Michael J. Crowley and John Reynolds of the Organized Crime & Gang Unit prosecuted the case. Updated November 13, 2025
FEDERAL JURY CONVICTS PENSACOLA MAN FOR SHOOTING AT DEA SPECIAL AGENT Thursday, November 13, 2025 U.S. Attorney's Office, Northern District of Florida PENSACOLA, FLORIDA – Austin James McCastler II, 36, was convicted by a federal jury on two counts of distribution of methamphetamine, possession with intent to distribute fentanyl and marijuana, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, attempted prevention of the government’s authority to take property during an authorized search and seizure, assault with a deadly weapon of a Special Agent of the Drug Enforcement Administration, and discharging a firearm during a violent crime. John Heekin, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Florida, announced the verdict today. US Attorney Heekin said: “This case exemplified the extreme dangers faced by the brave men and women of law enforcement who put their lives on the line every day to keep our communities safe from violent criminals. I am incredibly proud of the outstanding trial work by the talented prosecutors in my office that resulted in this successful verdict.” Trial testimony and evidence revealed that, after undercover law enforcement purchased methamphetamine from McCastler’s Pensacola residence on two occasions, a search warrant was obtained to search for and seize illicit narcotics from his home. On March 7, 2025, law enforcement attempted to execute the lawful warrant. McCastler would not comply with orders to surrender to law enforcement, and he armed himself with his American Tactical Imports assault rifle. As law enforcement surrounded the residence, McCastler opened fire, including one shot intended for the DEA Special Agent. McCastler then fled from the residence, jumped in his vehicle, and a high-speed chase ensued. The Escambia County Sheriff’s Office was immediately on the tail of McCastler and eventually immobilized his vehicle in traffic. McCastler then tried to flee on foot, but law enforcement captured him. A search of his residence ultimately revealed the loaded assault rifle, a second firearm, dozens of rounds of ammunition, fentanyl, and marijuana, amongst other things. McCastler is scheduled for sentencing on February 10, 2026, before United States District Judge M. Casey Rodgers. McCastler, who has more than five prior state felony convictions, faces up to life imprisonment. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, the Escambia County Sheriff’s Office, the Pensacola Police Department, and the Santa Rosa County Sheriff’s Office investigated the case. Assistant United States Attorneys David L. Goldberg and Jessica S. Etherton prosecuted the case. This case is part of Operation Take Back America (https://www.justice.gov/dag/media/1393746/dl?inline ) a nationwide initiative that marshals the full resources of the Department of Justice to repel the invasion of illegal immigration, achieve the total elimination of cartels and transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), and protect our communities from the perpetrators of violent crime. Operation Take Back America streamlines efforts and resources from the Department’s Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETFs) and Project Safe Neighborhood (PSN). The United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Florida is one of 94 offices that serve as the nation’s principal litigators under the direction of the Attorney General. To access available public court documents online, please visit the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida website. For more information about the United States Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Florida, visit http://www.justice.gov/usao/fln/index.html. Contact United States Attorney’s Office Northern District of Florida USAFLN.Press.Office@usdoj.gov X: @USAO_NDFL Updated November 13, 2025
Parrish Man Sentenced To More Than Eleven Years For Firearms Offense U.S. Attorney's Office, Middle District of Florida Tampa, Florida – U.S. District Judge Mary S. Scriven has sentenced Jason Peterson (29, Parrish) to 11 years and 5 months in federal prison for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The court also ordered Peterson to forfeit the firearms possessed in connection with the offense. Peterson pleaded guilty on June 11, 2025. According to court records, on November 16, 2024, deputies from the Manatee County Sheriff’s Office responded to a 911 call from a residence in Parrish. The caller stated that Peterson had previously battered her and was in possession of a firearm. Deputies arrested Peterson and recovered a Smith & Wesson handgun and a Bauer handgun from the residence. ATF agents interviewed Peterson after his arrest. Peterson admitted to possessing the Smith & Wesson handgun and knowing that he could not possess a firearm as a convicted felon. During the same interview, Peterson also discussed a Rossi shotgun that his wife had purchased for him at a gun store in Sarasota, which he subsequently sold to another felon. ATF agents subsequently recovered surveillance video showing Peterson in possession of the shotgun in October 2024. Prior to possessing the firearms, Peterson knew he had been convicted of multiple felonies, including battery on a law enforcement officer, resisting an officer with violence, and delivery of a controlled substance. As a convicted felon, Peterson is prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition under federal law. This case was investigated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Manatee County Sheriff’s Office. It was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Jeff Chang. This case is part of Operation Take Back America, a nationwide initiative that marshals the full resources of the Department of Justice to repel the invasion of illegal immigration, achieve the total elimination of cartels and transnational criminal organizations and protect our communities from the perpetrators of violent crime. Operation Take Back America streamlines efforts and resources from the Department’s Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces and Project Safe Neighborhoods. NOTE: This matter occurred on a previous date but not published at that time due to government shutdown. Press release posted and made available following the return to normal operations. Updated November 14, 2025
Gun Range, Let's Be Safe Gregg Kielma I observed a gentleman show up with his son and his son’s girlfriend. The son and girlfriend looked like they were in their mid-20’s. The dad then tried to teach the girlfriend how to shoot for the first time….. Very poor instruction to say the least. I continued to watch the “training” and immediately called a “Cease Fire” I could tell this wasn’t going to end well. I offered some assistance and was rejected. As a range safety officer, (this incident was not at my outdoor range) I stopped the fire line and asked that both be removed from the range until they had the proper training form a certified instructor. The indoor ranged operator agreed with me and asked them to leave until they had proper training. I offered all three of them training at my outdoor range. I told them this is the training that they will need to move forward if interested- 11/08/2025 still no answer: MY RULES for Safety at My Outdoor Range: • Tactical K Training and Firearms Safety Class (Must be taken before shooting at my outdoor range). The range is controlled by me and my team. No exceptions. • Liability Form Signed. • Safety is and will always BE #1... ALWAYS. • You can take the CCW class in lieu of the safety training before entering my outdoor range. • Range Day: have firearms ready to present to the RSO for inspection before use. • Follow all Range Rules. • The Range Safety Officer has the “Last Word”. • Any conflicts will be reviewed by Gregg Kielma and the RSO and a final decision will be rendered. If asked to leave, do it. Tactical K Training and Firearms Gregg Kielma
If my client purchases a .22 revolver, is there ammunition I can use to still make it an effective home defense weapon? Gregg Kielma Says Gregg Kielma, FFL, Firearms Instructor, Gunsmith, First Aid Fundamentals Instructor and ERT Captain, that's a great question and can be answered easily. The best ammo you can use for a .22 revolver to make it an effective home defense weapon is .22 ammo. Let's Take a Look My wife has a Ruger LCR 8 round .22 revolver among may other firearms to protect herself at home and out in public. Some people call her Ruger .22 a “pea shooter” but in my opinion it's a great home defense weapon coupled with her .410 Bullpup. Both are small, easy to handle, the Ruger holds 8 rounds, the Bull Pup 6 rounds and has virtually no recoil or very low recoil depending on her firearm use. If someone is breaking in and they hear someone say, “I'm armed and will defend myself if you don't leave immediately!” there are two ways it can go. First, the easy way. They hear that you're armed and get the hell out. They avoid risk staying safe. Second, the scarier way is they don't care and come in anyway. If they come at you and you start shooting, that's usually enough to scare them off. If not, you could put 8 rounds in them. Even .22 rounds are enough to cause pain and, if you hit them right or hit them multiple times, they won't want more and will either flee or drop. Do I, Gregg Kielma, prefer my 9mm or .45 semi auto to her .22 revolver? Yes, I do. Do I want her to be unarmed and defenseless? No, I don't. I'd much rather she has something she's comfortable with and confident enough to use. Side Note: My wife is deadly accurate with all her weapons. She trains with me we and has become an excellent shooter. Practice, Practice, Practice. She learned from one of the best...me. Says Kielma. Let’s Take A LOOK Further Choosing .22 Ammunition for Home Defense The question of whether a .22 revolver can serve as an effective home defense weapon often arises. The most suitable ammunition for this purpose is .22 caliber ammo, which is specifically designed for these firearms. Advantages of the .22 Revolver for Home Defense As an example, the Ruger LCR 8-round .22 revolver stands out as a capable option. While some may dismiss it as a “pea shooter,” it offers several benefits for home defense. Its compact size makes it easy to handle, it holds eight rounds, and it has virtually no recoil, allowing for more comfortable and controlled shooting. Potential Scenarios in a Home Defense Situation In the event of a break-in, announcing that you are armed and willing to defend yourself can often deter an intruder. There are two possible outcomes in this scenario: the intruder may hear your warning and choose to leave, avoiding unnecessary risk; or, in a more dangerous situation, they may ignore your warning and proceed. If this happens, firing the .22 revolver is usually enough to scare off the intruder. If that does not work, the revolver’s eight rounds can still inflict significant pain. Multiple well-placed shots with .22 ammunition can be effective at deterring or incapacitating an assailant, causing them to flee or stop their advance. Comfort and Confidence with Firearms While some may prefer a 9mm semi-automatic over a .22 revolver, the most important factor is being armed with a weapon you are comfortable and confident using. For example, the .22 revolver may be the best choice for someone who finds larger calibers uncomfortable or difficult to handle. Prioritizing familiarity and confidence with your firearm is essential for effective self-defense. Personal Preferences and Opinions Many people may have differing opinions about the effectiveness of the .22 caliber for home defense. However, the choice ultimately depends on individual comfort and capability. If someone feels more secure and capable with a .22 revolver, that is what matters most. Others are encouraged to choose what works best for them and share their perspectives if they wish.
How long does it take to walk into a gun store and come out with a semi-automatic, if I have a clean record in America? Gregg Kielma Let's Take a LOOK. It depends on the state; however, I wanted to share a client's personal experience for a couple reasons. 1. It may surprise some people - especially non-gun owners. 2. I feel it illustrates that gun control and gun laws are two different things and before jumping to the conclusion that we need more (or fewer) laws pertaining to guns, everyone should take a few minutes to educate themselves and use common sense. From a Client: This is my first time gun buying experience from about 4–5 years ago. His Thoughts I’d done quite a bit of research online, pretty much settled on what I wanted and decided it was time to walk into a gun store to look and make the final decision in person. After about 15 minutes I’d settled on a Gen 4 Glock 19. The store was running a special on the Gen 4s and I received a free box of ammunition, as well as an extra magazine. Next up it was time to go through the background check and pay. I had to wait, because there was an older guy and his son in front of me. He was purchasing the gun for his son (because he wasn’t 21) - apparently his son was joining a junior police academy and needed a handgun. Well, his background check came back - he had some kind of domestic abuse charge - no gun for you, no gun for your son. The owner of the gun shop chastised him for even wasting her time since he clearly knew that was on his record. Clients Turn. They ran my details; everything came back clean and it was time to pay. Something people may not realize is that guns aren’t cheap. Mine was close to $500. That’s a decent chunk of change and puts them out of many people’s reach economically. Of course, I’d imagine criminals acquiring weapons for much less - but then again, they don’t go through the proper process or channels. Great, background check cleared, I’ve paid and ready to go. The guy behind the counter bags things up and hands it to me - then the owner starts berating him. Apparently by putting the newly purchased gun (still in the case) and the box of ammunition, into the same bag they were setting me up to get a felony when I walked out of the store. They also gave me specific instructions about putting the gun and/or ammo in the trunk of my car - NOT the passenger compartment. Again, throwing the now two separate shopping bags into my back seat would have potentially been criminal (felony). This is where things get crazy. In Ohio, you can load up a gun - put it in a holster (on the outside of your clothes) and walk around in most public places. But, as soon as you cover up the gun - or get into a car with it - you’re breaking the law (felony) unless you’ve gotten a special license/permit. This requires more background checks, fingerprinting, attending a class, paying more money, etc. Now, let’s say you’re all about following the letter of the law and you go through all these steps so that you can carry your gun in your car. Things don’t get easier - because each state can be different. Despite having a permit, passing the background checks, etc - if you happen to drive into Chicago, you could be in a lot of trouble. Apparently, you can drive right through with no problems, but if you step foot outside of your car (even to get gas, even if you leave the gun in the car) you’re now in a world of trouble (felony). It makes you wonder why Chicago has so much gun violence when the gun laws there are so strict. The laws are very strict for gun owners, they can be very confusing, and it seems, by definition, only followed by law abiding citizens. Kielma's final thought. 1.) Know the gun laws in your state. Not knowing is not an excuse, ever. 2.) Take a CCW Class 3.) Be the reasonable person. 4.) Stay in condition yellow when an armed citizen. 5.) Always treat the firearm as loaded. 6.) Never point it at anything you do not want to destroy. 7.) Never us alcohol/or drugs when armed. 8.) Do not [put yourself in bad situations. 9.) Avoid-escape-Defend 10.) Always deescalate never escalate and situation when armed.
Second Amendment Groups Challenge Vermont Gun Waiting Period In Second Circuit Story by Mike Jenkins The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and a coalition of prominent gun rights organizations have filed an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, urging the court to strike down Vermont's 72-hour waiting period for firearm purchases. The brief supports the plaintiffs-appellants in the case, Vt. Fed. of Sportsmen’s Clubs, Inc. v. Birmingham, arguing that the district court’s previous ruling upholding the waiting period misapplied the historical test established by the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. Bruen and Rahimi by misapplying the Second Amendment’s historical test and creating a false ‘fork’ in the analysis for so-called ‘ancillary’ rights, and by relying on unserious analogues like laws disarming intoxicated persons." Moros emphasized the lack of historical tradition for such restrictions, noting, “History shows no tradition of waiting periods, even as mass production made guns widely available in the 19th century.” The groups are urging the Second Circuit to "reverse and restore the proper Bruen framework." The 2nd Amendment: History, Controversy, and Constitutional Debate The brief leverages recent legal victories and historical context to bolster its claim. It notes that the Tenth Circuit recently struck down a similar waiting period in Ortega v. Grisham, and points out that several other challenges to waiting periods are currently pending nationwide. Furthermore, the brief relies on primary historical sources, including newspaper advertisements offering firearms for sale as far back as 1745, to demonstrate a long-standing tradition of immediate access to arms. Alan M. Gottlieb, SAF founder and Executive Vice President, characterized the waiting period as an unconstitutional infringement. “The right to keep and bear arms doesn’t have a timestamp and should be afforded to anyone wishing to legally purchase a firearm,” Gottlieb said. He concluded that "waiting periods to exercise a constitutional right are impermissible and are a direct infringement on the Second Amendment rights of peaceable citizens.”
