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
*TO: After recent mass shootings, hasn't funding for gun violence research
*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
and I'm quoting directly here, “to advocate or promote gun control
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.
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
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
injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and
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
indirect communications intended or designed to influence a member of
regard to specific Federal legislation. This prohibition includes the
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
on political action or other activities designed to affect the passage of
Federal, State, or local legislation intended to restrict or control the
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
The Anti-Lobbying rule has been around a long time and wasn't motivated by gun
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 post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.