Home Donate
Annual Report
Request Help Law School Writing Contest Firearms Law Related Website Links
Mass Murder.  
The applicant is writing a book entitled Mass Murderers: Who? How? Why?  The gun prohibitionists are inaccurately blaming guns for mass murders.  The applicant’s book addresses the question of whether gun ownership—and specifically ownership of “assault weapons”—causes acts of mass murder.  The applicant will also address mass murders across the world, including mass murders in countries that have restrictive firearms laws.  The book will also address the use of explosives and other non-firearm weapons.  The applicant will discuss the causal factors related to mass murders and show that there is no correlation between access to firearms and mass murders. 
Many people are unaware that almost ¼ of current American mass murders do not involve guns.  So far (and I have not yet completed the 20th and 21st centuries), I have identified 529 mass murders in U.S. history with a total of 6,959 deaths.  Of those, 291 involved a single weapon type (many of the others involve multiple weapons: ax, knife, and blunt objects being a common combination): 141 incidents involved a firearm, and 154 were non-firearm incidents.  Where a single weapon type is used, non-firearm mass murders are usually much larger death tolls (many dozens dead from arson mass murders, thousands dead from airplane mass murders, dozens to hundreds dead from explosives mass murders).
…
[T]he common factors in most mass murders worldwide are severe mental illness, followed by political terrorism.  So far (and I have not yet completed the 20th, and 21st centuries), 24% of incidents have mental illness as a proximate cause; 4% with mental illness likely, 18% are robbery, 4% are acts of terrorism, with a fairly odd mix of other causes.
One chapter of the book is especially suited to a law review article countering the gun prohibitionists’ argument that certain classes of firearms make the Unites States exceptional in regard to mass murder problems.  The title: “Mass Murder: American Unexceptionalism.”  The applicant is submitting it to law reviews.  It is currently available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3055877 and at 
https://thecrimereport.org/2017/11/16/is-mass-murder-exceptionally-american/.
[M]ass murder is hardly a modern problem:  mass murder in America was a problem throughout the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, yet it did not prevent ratification of the broad guarantee recognized in DC v. Heller, incorporated to limit the states in McDonald v. Chicago, and the numerous state constitutional guarantees.
In April of 2018, the applicant participated in a 10th anniversary Heller symposium at Southern Illinois University School of Law.  He presented a paper titled, “Mass Murder: American Unexceptionalism, D.C. v. Heller, and ‘Reasonableness’” which will appear in a subsequent Southern Illinois University Law Journal.  In September 2018, the applicant gave a presentation at a Texas Bar legal seminar.  The applicant gave a presentation at a Second Amendment symposium at Lincoln Memorial University Law School in Knoxville, Tennessee, in January 2019.  The applicant has written a paper entitled “Would the authors of the Second have been so expansive in its protections had they known about our mass murder problem?”    
The applicant has also answered media queries concerning the relationship between mass murder and mental illness.  The applicant gave an interview with a Wall Street Journal reporter in February 2019 and was a guest at a talk show on WURD in Philadelphia.  The applicant was a speaker local NPR station town hall meeting about gun control in which he addressed the issue of mass murder.
American population grew fast at the end of the 19th century; mass murders also seem to increase per capita; and therefore mass murders grew more quickly … .  There is evidence that mass murders declined in the 1940s and 1950s.
…
Changes since 1920 seem to be more firearms, there is a big rise in gangland killings during Prohibition.  There seem to be fewer axes and hatchets because less wood stoves I surmise.  Poisoning seems to decline, perhaps because forensic medicine’s ability.  …  Train derailment remains popular, as do hammers and knives.
…
I will stop gathering data in 2003, because the very complete USA Today/Northeastern University mass murder data base starts in 2004.  The two databases will make a very comprehensive collection for criminologists to use.
…
The database and the details will be considered wonderful for criminologists and enhance the Civil Rights Defense Fund’s status as a funder of serious scientific research.
…
The mass murder at Cleveland School in 1989 that started California’s legislative focus on LCMs involved a mentally ill drifter with a history of involuntary commitment and a spotty record of outpatient treatment.  As the California Dept. of Justice’s official report observed: 
In an ideal world, ample resources would have been available to detect his problems, identify them as potentially dangerous and likely to result in his life being uselessly wasted, and to provide for a type of intervention with a reasonable prospect of making a difference.  However, in a world in which government spending has to recognize realistic limits set by the public, such resources will never be plentifully available.
The applicant most recently informed that he is now finishing his research up to the year 1965.  His research assistant is currently working on 1998.  Another research assistant is “adding in sex and age of mass murderers where that information is available … .”
While firearms continue to be an increasingly common method, blunt objects, knives, and drowning remain popular.  …  The database and the details will be considered wonderful for criminologists and enhance the Civil Rights Defense Fund’s status as a funder of serious scientific research.
I have filed expert declarations based on this data in Oregon Firearms Federation, Inc. v. Kotek (D.Ore. 2022); Rupp v. Bonta (C.D.Cal. 2022), Bevis v. Naperville (N.D. 2023), and Highland Park.  ...  I am also working with the challenge to the Illinois Assault Weapons Ban.
...
I have been producing expert declarations for literally dozens of challenges to gun laws across the nation.  ...  I have used the research done for this project in many of those declarations  ...; the research on this project simplified my testimony in various assault weapon cases.
...
The work from this mass murder project has been valuable in demonstrating, contrary to their “experts,” that mass murder is hardly new.  Even firearms mass murder is not new.
The applicant’s plan is to place the relational database and text in the USA Today mass murder database and then to write a book analyzing that data.
Most recently, the applicant used his research to dispute and rebut Professor Louis Klarevas’ research in support of firearms bans.
...  Klarevas’ use of raw counts obfuscates the degree to which the increase in count of incidents and dead is the result of population increase.  Criminologists, sociologists, and epidemiologists consistently use rates per 100,000 population to assess social problems—not raw counts of events.
...
Most mass murders in America do not involve guns.  My collection through 2005 with four or more dead includes 2,392 dead in 354 incidents where only firearms were used (average 6.75 per incident) and 7,405 dead in 558 incidents where no firearms were used (average 13.27 per incident).  
Bear Arms.  
The applicant is writing a law review article about Corpus Linguistics in the Second Amendment context.  
One of the issues that arose in briefing Bruen is the anti-2A side’s use of a relatively new computer tool, various versions of Corpus Linguistics.  Those databases incorporate enormous information about the use of language in the framing period and thereafter – books, newspaper articles, private letters.  Several of the other side’s amicus briefs focused upon using Corpus Linguistics searches to demonstrate that the phrase “bear arms” was almost always used to refer to military or militia carrying, not to civilian use for self-defense.  Our response came in an amicus brief that essentially argued Corpus Linguistics was incomplete.
The applicant’s article will provide a more helpful and “simpler and more definite answer.”
…  Whatever the words’ common usage, in the framing period and thereafter “bear arms,” when used in constitutional text was a term of art that encompassed carrying for individual self-defense.  This can be seen in state constitutions (of which there were many) that guaranteed a right to “bear arms” (not keep and bear) and which also expressed a purpose, such as “for defense of themselves and the state.”  Every one of these constitutions that I have found associated “bear arms” with individual self-defense.
The applicant informs that he has “completed this article and submitted it to a dozen law reviews.  It demonstrates that, over 1776-1868, state constitutions used “bear arms” as a term of art that including personal use in self-defense.  This is in answer to arguments that “bear arms” was commonly used to refer to military carry and not civilian use.”
This article demonstrates very, very, clearly that in state constitutions over 1776-1868, “bear arms” was a term of art that covered civilian carrying of arms in self-defense.  ...  [E]veryone knew they covered civilian carrying of arms.
Recently, the applicant informed:
I have completed this article and am circulating it to law reviews. It demonstrates that, over 1776-1868, state constitutions used “bear arms” as a term of art that including personal use in self-defense. This is in answer to arguments that “bear arms” was commonly used to refer to military carry and not civilian use.
Professor Mocsary has accepted the article for posting on his Firearms Research Center website at https://firearmsresearchcenter.org.
I am now circulating it to law reviews (August is the best month for that), and it is online at the Firearms Research Center, see https://firearmsresearchcenter.org/working_papers/textualism-heller-and-the-second-amendment-terms-of-art-and-language-drift/
      The Firearm Owners’ Protection Act.  
The applicant is writing a book about the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 (“FOPA”) to educate and help attorneys to properly use FOPA and successfully defend their clients.  The book will explain why a federal gun case is different than other cases.
…  FOPA made federal firearm law depart from the usual criminal law—with all the departures helping the gun owner. Specific intent is required for prosecutions, forfeitures, and dealer license revocations.  Forfeitures have deadlines, and many strict requirements. You can recover attorneys’ fees for a successful criminal defense, and they are mandatory for a defense forfeiture win.  …  Revocation of dealers’ licenses was likewise tightened, in ways that ATF routinely violates.
The book will outline changes in the law, major case law, the relevant statutory history, committee reports, floor speeches, and excerpts from key hearings over the seven years that FOPA was under consideration.
The applicant informs: 
Thus far I have written chapters on:
• FOPA’s seven-year legislative history;
• The changes it made in the Gun Control Act;
• Its state of mind elements
• Non-possessory offenses; and
• Felon in possession and restoration of rights issues (very complex).
What remains for completion is chapters on:
• Search, seizure, and forfeiture, rights and remedies;
• Penalties under the federal sentencing guidelines;
• Defending FFL revocations;
• DV misdemeanors, and
• The effect of the Administrative Procedures Act on ATF actions.
The end product will be a convenient book that will instruct attorneys on every aspect of FOPA, and how to use that statute for its intended purpose: the legal defense of firearm owners. If an attorney takes on an FFL revocation, he can just turn to this book, and the same for firearms seizures, or anything else.
The applicant has completed the text and is now doing final editing “and then to publication.”
Gun Violence Task Force.  
The applicant informs that in December 2012, President Obama created a Gun Violence Task Force, headed by then Vice President Joe Biden, to solicit proposals for gun control.  Records related to the Gun Violence Task Force have since been turned over to the National Archives and are subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
On March 29, the applicant submitted a FOIA request to the National Archives for all records of the Gun Violence Task Force.  “This is likely to be a gold mine of material, which can be used to educate our members as to the internal deliberations of those who oppose the right to arms.” 
The National Archives and Records Administration is processing the FOIA to ensure that none of the documents are privileged or classified and that they “have identified approximately 1,324 email messages, 159 electronic files, and 1,550 pages of potentially responsive records that must be processed in order to respond to your request.” 
The applicant informs that the National Archives have responded, informing that they have located 1,324 emails, 159 electronic files, and 1,550 pages of hard copy, and that they will comply with the statute.  The National Archives predict that they will make the documents available to the applicant soon.
These records should give us a valuable insight into what the anti-Second Amendment organizations and individuals really want, voiced while they thought they were speaking in secrecy, which will give us further ability to educate our members.
In order to expedite the National Archives and Records Administration’s response, the applicant intends to file a FOIA lawsuit.
History of Arms Restrictions.  
The applicant is researching the history of arms restrictions.  
Bruen of course made “text, history, and tradition” the test for Second Amendment challenges, placing history rather than criminology at the forefront.  The other side’s response has been to search for early arms restrictions; they recently convinced a court to uphold restrictions on rifle purchase by 18-21 year olds by finding some (late) Reconstruction-era restrictions of that type.  …
I propose to research the history of arms restrictions, with an eye to showing how little history almost all have.  Almost none date to 1791, or 1868, or anywhere close to either date.  For example, permits to carry openly did not begin to appear until the 1920s, and even today are limited to a very few states. Even permits for concealed carry were unknown until the 1890s.  Restrictions on long arms were virtually non-existent until the mid-1960s.  These and many other restrictions should clearly fail the Bruen standard.
The applicant’s research will include related issues, such as “to what extent and by what standards can a court consider post-ratification history?”
Response to Anti-Second Amendment Expert Opinion Webpage.  
The applicant intends to create a webpage that will serve as a resource for Second Amendment experts and authors.  
...  This would be a counterpoint to Duke University’s Firearms Law Center, which with foundation grants has been putting online every early American arms restriction its researchers can find.”
I propose the following format: for each alleged arms restriction, its category (possession, carry, age limit, type of weapon, etc.), a link to an image of the law, a link to its online source, and most importantly, a commentary on it and why it is not a valid citation. For example, a 17th century prohibition on carrying weapons in East New Jersey has been cited – but East New Jersey only existed as a colony for a few years, before being consolidated with West New Jersey, and no laws of the consolidated colony restricted arms-bearing. The odds of any American in 1789 remembering that a nonexistent colony had temporarily had a law a century before seem rather slim.
Response to Expert Witness Opinions.  
The applicant informs the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund as follows:
In the wake of Bruen, the gun prohibitionists are “employing ‘expert’ witnesses to dig up any suitably antique arms restrictions that can be argued to be analogous to some modern arms restrictions  ...” such as:
Colonial restrictions on storage of large quantities of gunpowder (to be analogized to limits on number of firearms owned, or more generally, to “the public had a right to protect themselves against civilian-owned arms”);
Limits on, and taxes imposed on, bowie knives, Arkansas toothpicks, and other “assault knives”;
Limits on gun ownership by minorities – blacks, Indians, Catholics;
Frontier-era limits on carrying inside incorporated towns;
“Sensitive area” restrictions on public transport and in universities (which upon closer examination turn out to be private companies’ and colleges’ regulations); ... .  
The applicant desires to research and write a response to counter these arguments and expert witnesses.
I propose to respond to this with a master document, either published online at SSRN, or made available privately to attorneys via a pdf, from which it can be used as the core of historical briefs. This document would reflect a response to the misuses of historic authority. One elaboration (which will not be easy to research) will involve showing how many of these laws (and I suspect most) were speedily repealed. They thus should amount to little in terms of text, history and tradition.
...
I have analyzed several of the anti-Second Amendment experts’ affidavits, and am researching their cited authorities  ...  .
Book, United States v. Miller.  
The applicant informs that he has been contacted by Karen Miller, the great-granddaughter of Jack Miller, the defendant in the United States Supreme Court’s 1939 United States v. Miller case.  Karen Miller’s grandmother—Jack Miller’s daughter—gave her “about two cubic feet of documents and photographs,” and discussed the case at length with her.  
Ms. Miller wants to write a book on the subject, has asked the applicant to co-author the book, and has an academic press that is interested in publishing the book. 
I have researched the case, and can provide the legal aspects. It strongly smells of a “set-up.” Jack Miller tried to plead guilty, the judge talked him out of it (how often do you hear of that happening) and appointed an attorney. The judge then dismissed the case on Second Amendment grounds. But the judge turns out to have been a former Congressman, personal friend of FDR, who had on the floor said that the Second Amendment was no restriction on federal gun control, or even a complete federal ban on handguns. Under the rules at the time, the fact that he dismissed the indictment on constitutional grounds meant the government could appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. But – and this is another anomaly – it did not. Perhaps someone slipped and missed the deadline. Then it re-indicted Miller, the judge dismissed a second time, and the government did appeal that. In the Supreme Court, Miller’s attorney was informed he had 2 ½ weeks to brief the case and show up for oral argument; upon his responding that he hadn’t even received the government’s brief, the clerk informed him that it was late in the Term and an extension would not be given.
…
The resulting book (and perhaps articles and popular pieces) would draw attention to the Second Amendment, the human cost of gun restrictions, and would undermine what little support remains for Miller. It might reach unusual audiences (the Cherokee Nation has 300,000 enrolled members).
The applicant met co-author Karen Miller coauthor (great-granddaughter of Jack Miller) and exchanged relevant documents with her.
The materials demonstrate that Miller wasn’t a bank robber, and show many aspects of his personal life (e.g., that he was a WWI vet and the Red Cross helped him and used his family in a fundraising ad.  He also ran a restaurant, and family lore says Will Rogers and Pretty Boy Floyd would stop in for its peach cobbler).
...
...  I have received a number of letters to Jack Miller, written by his daughter, and also some correspondence confirming his daughter’s statement that he was actually under the protection of a detective service, hired by the bank, at the time of his death. I have also uncovered newspaper articles establishing that charges of bank robbery against him were dismissed, because he had not taken part in the robbery.
The applicant informs that he has written two articles for the University of Wyoming’s Firearms Research Center, which can be found at https://firearmsresearchcenter.org/forum/.  The applicant is preparing a third article.

 

Learn More About the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund

Browse through the site to discover how the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund has provided millions of dollars in support of cases involving individuals and organizations defending the individual right to keep and bear arms and to support legal research and education

Gavel on a black background

Current Litigation

Stack of Active Cases

Eligible Cases

A Board Room

Officers and Board of Trustees

Need Help? Need Help?

Contact us by phone (703) 267-1250, fax 703-267-3985 or email [email protected]

CFC 10006 on a Black Background

Donations received at this site will be directed to the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund. You can also donate to the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund through the Combined Federal Campaign. The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund's CFC number is 10006.

EXPLORE

© 2026 NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund. Privacy Policy