Doesn’t it seem that gun grabbers always have a convenient factoid or handy study to cite to help their argument to seize your freedoms?
Believe me, that is no coincidence.
Diminutive New York anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg has spent millions to purchase research and focus groups that frame gun ownership as a sickness and paint lawfully-owned firearms and their owners as a bigger threat to your family than ISIS or the Zika virus.
You know, things that actually threaten your well-being.
The mainstream media recites this anti-gun propaganda, dressing it up as “scientific data” and “facts” for anti-gun politicians to use when they come up with even more creative ways to attack your rights and leave your families helpless.
Rinse and repeat.
At The Calguns Foundation, we are uniquely equipped to end this vicious cycle. Not only do we have the finest legal minds to fight these anti-gun laws in court, but we sponsor and commission pro-gun research to support OUR cause by respected scholars like Clayton Cramer, whose work was cited in Second Amendment victories like DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago.
With insightful, pro-gun research, we can educate lawmakers and jurists, correct misleading rhetoric, and most importantly, fight back against the “Bloombergian” propaganda that pollutes our television screens and news outlets.
We can fight every anti-gun law in court until we run out of breath; however, these assaults on our civil liberties won’t stop until we have truthful, pro-gun data that stops these attacks at the root.
The future of the gun movement is at stake. Our opponents have a steady flow of anti-gun mistruths at their fingertips and we need to clear the air with our own facts and information.
Please consider chipping in a $5, $25, or $50 contribution today so we can combat their lies with the truth.
[gravityform id=”21″ title=”false” description=”false” ajax=”true”]
CGF, FPC and FPCAF File Brief in Support of Challenge to Hawaii Public Handgun Carry Bans
“The locations Hawaii now hopes to treat as ‘sensitive’ cannot possibly be analogized to the core founding-era sensitive locations recognized in Bruen and District of Columbia v. Heller,” argues the brief. “The historical record shows that, at the founding, carry restrictions were strictly limited to locations where the government provided comprehensive security, which stands in stark contrast to Hawaii’s sweeping restrictions.”
