“Developing Firearms Law as a Scholarly Field” is a worthy endeavor and exactly what the Duke Center for Firearms Law proclaims on their website as the Center’s mission. But is the reality just another propaganda effort, this time using the credibility and prestige of the Duke brand to promote an anti-gun agenda? As the Magic 8 Ball might say, signs point to yes. The Center’s recent hiring of an established gun control advocate as its director is the latest and most telling evidence to this effect.
This isn’t surprising news, as various university-based programs such as the University of Michigan’s Institute for Firearm Injury Prevention, the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions, the Rutgers Gun Violence Research Center, or the University of Minnesota Law School Gun Violence Prevention Clinic, to name only a few, work to cloak anti-gun policy in “academic credentials and research” in hopes of bolstering support in a seemingly more “accomplished” and credentialed way.
The Duke Center for Firearms Law had promised to provide “reliable, original, insightful scholarship” and, with oversight by NRA and others, had put out some surprisingly neutral-ish content on firearm rights over the past few years. The cards, however, have now been laid on the table with the announcement of the newest Executive Director of the University’s program. Their “ace” is Hayley Lawrence, a D.C. litigator whose pro bono practice has focused on working with arch anti-gun clients like Brady United, Giffords, and Everytown for Gun Safety, according to her bio.
Lawrence’s recently published paper in the Journal of Gender, Race & Justice titled Toxic Masculinity and Gender-Based Gun Violence in America: A Way Forward also gives away her real feelings about firearm law and policy, concluding that essentially any and all masculinity is toxic, especially among American men, and serves as the root of violent or suicidal tendencies. Ultimately, Lawrence theorizes that until men can be “cured” of their masculinity, gun control reform is the only answer.
Her paper’s section on this particular “way forward” begins: “Gun violence is a public health crisis.” That single sentence tells us everything we need to know about her support for the intention to “reframe the debate” about gun control to portray guns as a public health menace. NRA has been reporting on the danger and dishonesty of this “public health” framing for gun control for years with some of the most recent NRA-ILA Alerts here and here.
Lawrence’s stated solutions are heavily centered around anti-gun policies that include a call for all states to adopt or significantly expand already unconstitutional red flag laws. With that, we can once again look forward to academic-sponsored advocacy “research” with pre-determined conclusions always pointing toward the need for more gun control.
The growth of anti-gun university-based programs and offices with titles mismatched to their intent is not surprising, given the success of firearm prohibition advocates insinuating their objectives into everything from religion to dentistry. But it signals a disheartening development that generations of students, and in this case, a new generation of law students, are at risk of being brainwashed into the belief that dismantling fundamental constitutional rights is a laudable career goal or at least sound public policy.
Lawrence is quite new to the legal working world, having just graduated from Duke Law School in 2021. It’s not impossible she might mature into a more down-to-earth approach to her subject matter as she gains more experience and exposure. Rest assured, NRA-ILA will be keeping a watchful eye on the center’s output and injecting a reality-based perspective where necessary to aid in that effort.
You do realize that actually there is no such thing as ‘Firearms Law’.
Creating a ‘Firearms Law’ thing is akin to saying ‘assault weapon’ for the semi-auto MSR (which is not an ‘assault weapon’). By using the term ‘assault weapon’ they created a ‘bucket’ they could fill with anything they want to infringe on constitutional rights to give their infringements ‘legitimacy’. For example, substitute ‘semi-auto firearm’ for any occurrence of the term ‘assault weapon’ in California or Illinois law and the law is automatically unconstitutional (under Bruen) because ‘semi-auto firearms’ are in common use and in their more primitive form with the ‘technology’ of the time (compared to today) even existed at the ratification of the second amendment and regarded as ‘arms’ that are not both ‘unusual (because they are in common use) AND dangerous’ but keep calling it ‘assault weapon’ then you can keep arguing ‘common use’ based upon cosmetic color or features or even magazine capacity and keep it going through the courts for years while your infringements stay in place.
Her other academic article is The Untold History of Women’s Suffrage. Of course they chose a highly indoctrinated feminist to spread the religion.
It’s not impossible she might mature into a more down-to-earth approach to her subject matter as she gains more experience and exposure.
It’s also possible that you might win the lottery.
NRA Calls Out Propaganda Pretending to be News.
“On December 19, USA Today published an article titled ‘Guns marketed for personal safety fuel public health crisis in Black communities.’ The byline of the ‘article’ is ‘Fred Clasen-Kelly and Daniel Chang, KFF Health News.’ Most people will not look at the byline. Fewer still will look into KFF Health News (formerly Kaiser Health News).
…”
ht* tps://bearingarms.com/tomknighton/2025/12/23/nra-calls-out-propaganda-pretending-to-be-news-n1231015