Democrats Want Taxpayers to Fund Gun Control Advocacy Through the CDC

U.S. Rep. Valerie Foushee (D-N.C.) introduced legislation that would put the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in charge of creating a publicly accessible federal database of “gun violence prevention” research.

The Gun Violence Prevention and Public Safety Database Act of 2026, listed as H.R. 9274, would direct CDC to build and maintain an online database of research related to “gun violence” and public safety. It would also authorize $5 million in taxpayer money each fiscal year from 2026 through 2030 to carry out this goal.

That isn’t neutral housekeeping. It’s a taxpayer-funded effort to create a federal clearinghouse for a gun control agenda that begins with a goal — create more restrictions on law-abiding Americans’ Second Amendment rights — then searches for the “right” data to justify it.

Don’t be shocked that we’re extremely skeptical of this scheme. Just look at the track record.

A Federal Stamp for Gun Control Research

Rep. Foushee’s bill would require CDC to include research from federal public health data systems, peer-reviewed journals, research organizations and information issued or commissioned by federal, state or local government agencies. It would also require CDC to publish inclusion criteria and update the database every six months.

That gives federal officials broad discretion to decide what research is elevated, what receives the implied credibility of a CDC platform and what lawmakers, media outlets and gun control activists will later cite as “the science.”

But, as we’ve seen over and over and over again, “gun violence prevention” isn’t a neutral phrase for a sizeable contingent in Washington, D.C. It is the preferred branding of gun control groups and activists to promote bans on commonly owned firearms, magazine limits, waiting periods, firearm retailer liability schemes, firearm purchase delays and government-funded programs that target the lawful firearm industry instead of violent criminals.

Go figure that Rep. Foushee’s own announcement says the bill is endorsed by Brady, Everytown for Gun Safety and the Safe States Alliance. That’s not incidental, that’s the point.

Bad Data Makes Bad Policy

Accurate crime statistics, suicide data, law enforcement information and responsible research all have a role in serious public safety policy. The problem begins when advocacy groups define the terms, select the data, frame the conclusion and then demand government validation.

Media outlets and politicians who push gun restrictions routinely cite Gun Violence Archive figures even though its definitions differ sharply from traditional law enforcement standards and can wrongly inflate public understanding of crimes such as what constitutes a “mass shooting” and even how frequent “school shootings” occur. These are just a couple of easy examples of how bad data can be used to push bad policy.

Another highly public example of data being misused to penalize and punish the lawful firearm industry involves crime gun trace data, which should remain only available to law enforcement that are trying to solve crimes. NSSF has repeatedly warned about gun control “name-and-shame” schemes that misuse firearm trace data to smear lawful firearm retailers for crimes committed by unrelated third parties. A firearm trace is an investigative tool, not a finding of wrongdoing. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) even states that they do not mean a retailer broke any law or had anything to do with a crime committed downstream. They do not prove the original purchaser committed a crime. And they should never be twisted into a political accusation against lawful businesses. But as we see frequently — including during the Biden administration when the ATF worked with USA Today on a “name-and-shame” media report — these groups misuse data to punish the wrong entity.

This same problem appears in other gun control datasets that Rep. Foushee’s bill would in turn use as the “science” in her public taxpayer-funded database to push gun control. A CDC-branded database would magnify that problem, giving gun control advocates a federal platform to launder their preferred studies and talking points through a government website, then turn around and cite that same website as proof their agenda is “evidence based.”

Taxpayers Shouldn’t Fund Advocacy Against a Constitutional Right

Congress has long recognized that taxpayer dollars should not be used to advocate or promote gun control. That principle is at the heart of the Dickey Amendment, which did not ban legitimate research but did bar federal funds from being used as a gun control campaign account.

Rep. Foushee’s bill moves in the opposite direction. It would expressly allow federal funds made available to the Department of Health and Human Services, including CDC and the National Institutes of Health, to conduct or support research on “gun violence.” Then it would create a federal database to collect, organize and promote that research.

That should alarm every lawmaker who believes federal agencies must respect constitutional rights. The Second Amendment is not a public health defect to be managed away by bureaucrats, academics and gun control organizations. It is a fundamental constitutional right.

Don’t take my word on it — look at the history. Major institutions in this space openly blend research with advocacy. For example, the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions at the Bloomberg School of Public Health describes its work as including research, legal and policy advocacy, implementation, training and technical assistance. What they actually do is promote “evidence” to support gun control.

A recent Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School report came out with several recommendations to reduce “gun violence.” The five-point plan, constructed by the school’s “Consortium for Risk-Based Firearm Policy,” main takeaways were that gun ownership would be better treated as a privilege and not as a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution for all law-abiding citizens.

That should not become the model for a taxpayer-funded federal gun control research hub.

Real Safety Focuses on Criminal Misuse

The firearm industry has a long record of supporting real public safety solutions. NSSF’s Project ChildSafe has helped distribute firearm safety education and locking devices nationwide. Don’t Lie for the Other Guy helps educate firearm retailers and the public to prevent illegal straw purchases. Operation Secure Store works with firearm retailers and law enforcement to deter thefts and burglaries.

These programs focus on responsibility, education, lawful commerce and yes, criminal misuse. They do not scapegoat law-abiding gun owners, firearm retailers, manufacturers or distributors for the actions of violent criminals.

Public safety is advanced by prosecuting violent offenders, stopping illegal firearm trafficking, enforcing existing laws and educating the public about safe and responsible firearm ownership, including keeping guns out of the hands of those who shouldn’t possess them. It is not advanced by creating a taxpayer-funded CDC laundry list that gun control groups can use to dress up policy preferences as settled science.

Fortunately, with a slim Republican majority right now, Congress won’t be acting on Rep. Foushee’s bill anytime soon this year. We also know that political winds can shift quickly. The better prescription is an educated and informed public that understands when one side pushes an antigun agenda with a goal of taking away constitutional rights.

 

Matt Manda is Manager, Public Affairs for the National Shooting Sports Foundation.