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 do policemen carry their sidearms in open holsters? Is it easy for anyone to grab them? Gregg Kielma Unknown to most people with casual familiarity with firearms, virtually all holster (especially those used by law enforcement) have a locking system, even if it isn’t easily seen. In fact, I don’t know of any police departments that doesn’t require one on holsters. Now some are much more effective than others, but almost all of them require one. For civilians, especially if carrying concealed, this system just uses tension, but even most civilians use holsters with a locking system that needs to be disengaged before drawing a firearm. The best locking systems can, with practice, be disengaged while drawing, in one smooth action. The holster above is from Safariland and uses their GLS locking system . On the right-hand side is a small protrusion which is a lock release. If you are drawing correctly, as you grab the firearm your finger should automatically hit and release it. While it takes some practice to make it completely smooth, most concealed carriers and law enforcement should already be practicing their draws at least once a week. On the other hand, if you are unfamiliar with the system (which 99% of the general public is) you’ll have no clue how to disengage the lock and will only end up pulling the wearer’s pants up an inch or two. Even if you pulled hard enough to remove the holster completely from the wearer’s pants, you still wouldn’t be able to use the firearm as all proper holsters (which is all the holsters Safariland makes) completely cover the trigger (never buy a holster that doesn’t completely cover the trigger). Many manufacturers produce similar holsters that use their own unique proprietary systems, the one below just happens to be the one I’m most familiar with.
Gregg Kielma in his GUN SHOP What is an "idiot scratch" on a firearm? Kielma says, if you scratch your firearm, I can fix it for you. Give me a call and I’ll do my best to make it look new again. Let’s TAKE A LOOK at a friend and my thoughts. The 1911 is one of the most iconic handguns in the world. Dozens of manufacturers make them. You might find a cheap, used 1911 for as little as $200 if you shop. On the other hand, you could find a Cabot 1911 for around a million dollars. Regardless of how expensive it is, a 1911 is venerated within the gun community. Beloved. An “idiot scratch” is something you see most commonly on 1911s, especially those owned by inexperienced or careless gun owners. I don’t agree with calling anyone an idiot. I don’t think of myself as incompetent. I have a scratch. It just isn’t obvious. How does that happen? In my case, it was just the fact that I’ve disassembled and reassembled that thing in a lot of different scenarios, including in low light situations. I’ve probably disassembled and reassemble it literally hundreds of times for various reasons (including converting it to a .22lr pistol). Why does it happen? It has a spring in there pushing a peg forward. If not careful the spring will “pop” out and could scratch your firearm. The peg makes it slightly more difficult to get this slide stop in place. That’s what scratches your frame. People who are new, careless, or whatever sometimes sweep up to get that slide stop in place. Now remember that while you’re doing all that, you’re also holding the slide back just the right amount to get it all to line up so that the notch in the slide fits. Accidents happen. It isn't that big of a deal. I could probably buff mine out, it’s so light. I just don’t care. My 1911 is one of my least favorite guns to shoot. That’s why it sits in the safe 99% of the time when I go to the range. I’d rather be shooting my CZ 97B. I don’t care about such things and don’t judge people who have marks. They could be exceptional shooters and just… not care about cosmetics. Maybe it isn’t even their mark but rather one caused by the last owner. It doesn’t affect function. It’s just… guys giving each other the business, like “Clips” vs. “magazines.” Lol If you scratch your firearm, I can fix it for you. Give me a call and I’ll do my best to make it look new again.
Do gun owners realize there is a limit on how many guns they can own at a time? Thoughts from an avid reader of the blog. What’s your thoughts on this? It is true. But we don’t like to talk about this subject much. When I was a bachelor living in an apartment, a gun safe was impractical. And closets were…packed. So I had 4 cased rifles under my bed. When I was married and had kids, the gun safe was practical. I filled it. Now that we are empty nesters and less demands on my wallet…. I asked Senior Management if I maybe could get a bigger gun safe to put a few more guns in? Senior Management went all practical and rational (I hate when that happens), “Why do you need more guns? You hardly shoot the ones you have!” So, I bought a case of ammunition instead. Keep up the good work by asking anti-gun questions. It reminds us of the haters lurking out there. Do yourself a favor, stock up on guns and ammo. I will note that I am a typical redneck American gun nut. Working in technology, have couple degrees, bit over 800 books in my Kindle. Accuracy snob. Uninterested in anything rapid fire - hit with the first shot saves both time and ammo. Served in the reserves. Ready to protect the weak from predators - except we don’t even tolerate that here in the first place. Can’t remember how to skin a deer, it’s been years. Can build a campfire. live in the woods for a weekend on canteen of water and 3 trail bars, been even longer. Can remember how to train youngsters on safe handling and excellent marksmanship, recent as last week.
More Mixed Signals From The U.S. Justice Department On Second Amendment Support We’ve reported lately how the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) seems to have a somewhat schizophrenic attitude when it comes to supporting the Second Amendment. On one hand, the DOJ claims to be doing everything it can to restore Americans’ 2A rights. On the other hand, DOJ attorneys will defiantly argue in support of an obviously unconstitutional infringement. In late November, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) lambasted the DOJ for trying to limit a critical Second Amendment court ruling. After a court ruled that the nationwide ban on concealed carry in post offices is unconstitutional, the DOJ filed a motion to limit the scope of the injunction to only the named individual plaintiffs and to members of SAF and its partner organizations, but only to those who were members when the complaint was originally filed and who have been identified and verified. In other words, the government wants to keep the ban intact for the rest of America’s lawful gun owners. “The critical thing to remember here is that the government is fighting tooth and nail to continue enforcing an unconstitutional law against as many people as possible,” SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut said. “The DOJ’s position that it would be ‘impossible’ for it to know who was protected by the injunction without a membership list is just plain silly. If officials want to know if someone found to be carrying at a post office is a SAF member, they can simply ask.” Less than a week later, Reuters published information about a leaked DOJ plan to expand gun-rights protections with a new office in its civil rights division dedicated to enforcing the U.S. constitutional right to bear arms. The office, called the Second Amendment Rights Section, is expected to open on December 4 and will be dedicated to investigating local laws or policies that limit gun rights, something the Trump Administration has promised since its first week in office.
Michigan Governor Whitmer Surprise: Whitmer’s Anti-Gun Task Force Says Stricter Gun Laws Are The Answer To Violence Mark Chesnut “Garbage in, garbage out” is an old computer science axiom that describes how flawed, biased or poor-quality input will produce equally flawed, biased or poor-quality output. Of course, the principle doesn’t only apply to computer science. The entire gun control world often operates on this same premise. So, consider how unsurprising it truly is that a task force that Democrat Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer created to make policy recommendations to curb violence is urging state lawmakers to ban the possession of so-called “assault weapons” and “large-capacity” magazines. According to a report at michiganadvance.com, Dr. Natasha Bagdasarian, the state’s chief medical executive and the task force’s chair, said the group used a “public health” approach to addressing “gun violence” in the state. “There are a lot of issues here that have not historically been thought of as public health issues, and only when we’ve taken this really comprehensive public health approach have we been able to implement real change,” Bagdasarian told the newspaper. “Gun violence is one of those issues.” It’s easy to immediately see how much garbage went into this project, resulting in the garbage that came out. First, Whitmer tasked the group with finding an answer to the “gun violence” problem. That is, indeed, garbage.
Florida: Pro-Gun Bill Repealing Adult Age Discrimination Advances to House Vote Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee voted 13-7 to favorably report pro-gun House Bill 133, which restores the ability for young adults to lawfully purchase firearms. The bill now heads to the full House, where it is eligible for a vote when the 2026 regular session begins in January. House Bill 133, sponsored by Rep. Tyler Sirois, restores the ability for young adults to acquire firearms by lowering the minimum age requirement to purchase from 21 to 18. Since 2018, Florida has completely banned 18-to-20-year-olds from purchasing a firearm of any kind, for any purpose. A young adult in violation faces stiff penalties, including up to five years of imprisonment, a fine of up to $5,000, or both. On May 16th, the NRA filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in NRA v. Glass, requesting that the U.S. Supreme Court hear its challenge to Florida’s law prohibiting adults under 21 from purchasing firearms.
Brady X Poster Gets Undies In A Bundle Over ‘Less-Than-Lethal’ Weapons Proposal Mark Chesnut When an organization goes somewhat berserk on social media, passionately stringing post after post together ostensibly to make some kind of point, you’d normally figure that topic is probably a top priority of that group. That’s why gun-ban group Brady’s recent freak out over less-than-lethal weapons is somewhat bewildering. Brady: NONSENSE Brady, formerly called Handgun Control Inc. before leaders learned that most Americans were against “controlling” handguns, has never seen a gun control scheme that it didn’t embrace. But until the recent flurry of social media activity, so-called less-than-lethal weapons didn’t seem to be on the group’s radar much. That changed big time on November 19, when whoever was handling the organization’s X (formerly Twitter) account. “While the world focused on the Epstein files, Congress took up a dangerous bill that sponsors say is to help law enforcement get greater access to ‘less-than-lethal’ weapons,” Brady posted in a typical manner critical of anything seemingly in the pro-self-defense category. “In reality, it deregulates dangerous weapons to help a billion-dollar weapons industry make more money.” That’s all well and good, but the author seemed not to be able to let the matter go, soon posting more on the topic just a few minutes later. “This bill isn’t from a well-intentioned lawmaker or a group working to prevent deadly police violence,” Brady posted. “It’s backed by the manufacturers of so-called ‘less-than-lethal’ weapons, like tasers, who have started making products that are appropriately classified as guns under the law.” Still apparently not having said enough, the Brady writer entered rant mode with yet a third post a short time later. “In their effort to skirt the regulation of their products, this bill would narrow the definition of firearm and open a new market for untraceable ghost guns, which have already led to thousands of deaths in the last decade,” Brady posted.
Extremely Troublesome Department Of Justice Brief Draws Stark Warning From GOA Mark Chesnut A bold brief, recently filed by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in a case challenging the National Firearms Act (NFA), has one gun-rights organization sounding an alarm. According to Gun Owners of America (GOA), on November 20, the DOJ, in the case Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF, filed an “outrageous brief that embraces an alarmingly expansive theory of federal authority.” That assertion runs directly afoul of President Donald Trump’s promise to protect the Second Amendment for all Americans. In responding to GOA and GOF’s “One Big Beautiful Lawsuit,” the DOJ treats Congress’ removal of the historic $200 tax as a pretext to rewrite the limits of congressional power, advancing an argument that would open the door to federal regulation far beyond anything the Framers intended. “GOA and GOF condemn Attorney General Pam Bondi and President Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ) for doubling down on enforcement of an archaic and unconstitutional law while simultaneously offering legal theories that would expand federal power to historic levels,” GOA said in a news release revealing the DOJ’s actions. “This is especially striking from an administration that had promised to respect the Second Amendment and review burdensome agency rules.” As GOA further explained, the implications of the DOJ’s stance are immediate and ominous.
If you have a concealed carry permit and you have a gun with you, and you walk into or need to go into a store that doesn’t allow guns, what do you do? Says Kielma, this is an easy one for me. I do not and never will enter a place that has ca no "firearms allowed" , ever. I’ll spend my hard-earned CASH SOMEPLACE ELSE. If I miss the sign by accident and enter then, I’ll suffer the consequences. NOTE: Please check for signs on doors. Keep your firearm concealed and no one should bother you if you miss the door sign. Let’s take a look at BOB an avid reader of my website would do: I have a concealed carry permit, and I carry concealed all the time. Concealed means unseen. Unless they have metal, detectors and security guards wandering, I simply ignore the signs. The difference would be places whereby actual law, you cannot be armed on the premises. Federal and government buildings for instance. True story. We went to see a show. We had to park some distance away and when we got to the place to present our tickets… you guessed it, they were wanding everybody. My wife says to me, “well, you've got your ticket and seat assignment, hurry back.” I just nodded and stayed in line. When she got up there, they wanded her and glanced in her purse. I was next. I told the female doing the wanding that I was going to set things off because I had a lot of metal on me. I then pulled a suspender strap from under my coat and showed her the metal concho on it. She told me OKAY, swiped the wand down my front and back - it went off - and she waved me through. When we took our seats my wife side mouths to me, “one day you're going to have to tell me how you did that.” “Old Jedi mind trick I replied, these are not the droids you're looking for.” What was I carrying? Full size main firearm with two backup magazines, backup firearm with two speed strips, Leatherman Wave, Swiss Champ, Thru Nite flashlight, neck knife and a couple other pocketknives and a smartphone. Several points: No place on the tickets did it say no firearms or pocketknives. Matter of fact there was no mention of security. This was a public venue. I had already paid to be there. My permit was valid in the State I was in. Concealed means just that. My 4th Amendment rights didn't evaporate with my purchase of a ticket. The fact I got through security meant others may have too. Was this event taking legal responsibility for my security and that of my family? Of course not. As we were leaving my son said, “so much for their security.” He was right. Security unless you have the Secret Service providing it is pretty much an illusion/delusion.
What's more powerful than the .308 and .30-06 for certain types of hunting? How does it compare? What do you think? .45 70? Gregg Kielma .45-70 ? As a straight-walled cartridge, it and similar types of ammunition are favored for deer in states were bottlenecked cartridges, such as 30–06, cannot be legally used. In its original loading, it delivers 2,221 joules of energy but has been loaded much hotter to the point that 3800–4600 joules are possible. A standard .308 load delivers around 3600 joules and 30–06 around 3800. It is a good example of “knockdown power" type of ammunition in that a large chunk of lead, traditionally not moving as fast, hits hard because of its mass. More modern cartridges made use of smaller bullets and smokeless powder to create ammunition that hits hard with a moderate projectile and much higher velocity. The tradeoff is that .308 and .30–06 have far less muzzle drop at long ranges. Off the top of my head, the projectile drops something like 4′ at 400 yards, but it has been a while since I looked that up. .308 is much flatter shooting. Just my opinion. What do you think?
