Gun-control advocates have long relied on federal funding to push studies that frame firearms as a “public-health crisis” rather than part of a constitutional right. In the absence of a steady government cash flow, many gun-control groups fear that their ability to influence public opinion and policy will weaken.
So-called gun-policy researcher Garen Wintemute expressed concern that young scholars without federal funding might have difficulty building careers in the field. At a recent gathering of like-minded “gun-research” academics, he acknowledged that funding cuts could hinder their ability to continue producing research that bolsters gun-control arguments. This reaction underscores this movement’s reliance on government assistance to sustain its efforts.
The gun-control group Everytown for Gun Safety also conveyed alarm about the potential loss of research funding. Their official statement argues that federal research on violence with guns has been stifled for decades due to political opposition. They claim that this research is essential to developing policies that could save lives, but critics argue that such research has all been used to justify sweeping gun-control measures that infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens.
The history of federal gun-control research funding is telling. In the 1990s, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) faced significant backlash for using taxpayer funds to promote gun-control policies. The NRA successfully lobbied for the Dickey Amendment in 1996, which prohibited the CDC from using federal funds to advocate for gun control. For the next two decades, anti-gun “researchers” tried to mislead the public into believing the Dickey Amendment prevented federal funds to be used on any research related to firearms (it did not), or that it prevented the publication of research related to firearms (it could not, thanks to the First Amendment). Nonetheless, Congress allocated $25 million to the CDC and National Institutes of Health (NIH) for firearm research in 2019 in what seemed like an attempt to placate critics of the Dickey Amendment.
This public money likely fueled anti-gun research that then was used to propagate mainstream-news coverage that opposed our right to keep and bear arms.
In another example of taxpayer money being used against a right that’s specifically protected by the U.S. Bill of Rights, former President Biden created a taxpayer-funded White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, a scheme to designed entice anti-gun donors and to seek further ways to infringe upon citizens’ Second Amendment rights. In late 2023, the office hosted nearly 100 Democrat lawmakers from 39 states to encourage them to pass more-restrictive firearms laws at the state level. This office’s website went dark soon after President Trump swore again to uphold the U.S. Constitution on January 20.
Ultimately, the panic among gun-control advocates over the loss of federal funding reveals a fundamental truth: their movement has been propped up by government dollars rather than genuine public demand. If their research were truly objective and compelling, it would find independent financial support rather than relying on taxpayer subsidies. The Biden administration’s use of federal funds to advance a political agenda was always controversial, and its reversal under Trump is a welcome shift toward respecting constitutional rights.
If the loss of federal funding forces gun-control advocates to rely on facts rather than fearmongering, that’s a victory for both the Second Amendment and honest policymaking.
Most Popular
