On 10/7/2013 8:15 PM, LizR wrote:
Oops, silly me, it was in the very same article. I missed it when I skimmed through to check...

    *TO: After recent mass shootings, hasn't funding for gun violence research 
    more attention?*
    *GM:* There is a proposal in Congress to allow for $10 million in research 
    But I suspect it essentially has no chance of making it. Even if it did, our
    Department of Health and Human Services prohibits any of the funds from 
being used
    and I'm quoting directly here, “to advocate or promote gun control
    <http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-CE-07-001.html>.” That 
means even
    if I had money to do the research, it would be a crime to talk about the 

That assumes the result of the research would imply gun control. Would the research consider the possibility of armed revolt against and oppressive government which was the original motivation for the 2nd amendment? Would he consider the value of recreational hunting? I think not. I think the researcher had already assumed his conclusion. Just because a certain device results in people being killed and injured is not sufficient reason for banning it. I'm sure there would be fewer deaths per year if motorcycles were banned, ditto for sky diving, swimming, skiing, and drinking beer.

Here's the article he links to:


And here is the grant, with the prohibition mentioned:


I assume this is the relevant bit:

    *Prohibition on Use of CDC Funds for Certain Gun Control Activities*
    The Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and 
    Agencies Appropriations Act specifies that:"None of the funds made 
available for
    injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention may
    be used to advocate or promote gun control."

    Anti-Lobbying Act requirements prohibit lobbying Congress with appropriated 
    monies. Specifically, this Act prohibits the use of Federal funds for 
direct or
    indirect communications intended or designed to influence a member of 
Congress with
    regard to specific Federal legislation. This prohibition includes the 
funding and
    assistance of public grassroots campaigns intended or designed to influence 
    of Congress with regard to specific legislation or appropriation by 

    In addition to the restrictions in the Anti-Lobbying Act, CDC interprets the
    language in the CDC's Appropriations Act to mean that CDC's funds may not 
be spent
    on political action or other activities designed to affect the passage of 
    Federal, State, or local legislation intended to restrict or control the 
purchase or
    use of firearms.

So the implication /seems /to be that if the research discovered that the best way to stop people being killed and injured by guns was gun control, it wouldn't be allowed to say so.

I'm not sure whether a technical report of research would count as advocacy or political action or not. But the reason is obvious. Congress doesn't want the CDC going around them to advocate for legislation. And in any case the Supreme court has ruled that owning a gun is a Constitutionally guaranteed individual right, subject only to "reasonable restrictions".

The Anti-Lobbying rule has been around a long time and wasn't motivated by gun 
control issues.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to