Johns Hopkins Illustrates Why Dickey Amendment Existed in the First Place

The Dickey Amendment was “credited” with ending gun research funding by the federal government for decades.

It really didn’t. It just put an end to anti-gun advocacy funded by the American taxpayers, but the CDC saw it differently. They couldn’t imagine gun research that was simply neutral, apparently.

So, gun research continued, but had to find different funding.

Now, there are massive problems with gun research, which we’ve talked about before. However, it seems Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health wanted to illustrate just why things shook out the way it did with the Dickey Amendment.

A new report released by the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions recommends that more states adopt comprehensive firearm purchaser licensing laws based on years of evidence that these laws are effective in reducing gun violence. 

The report was written by researchers at the Center for Gun Violence Solutions, which is based at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and the Consortium for Risk-Based Firearm Policy, a group of gun policy researchers. The report, “Firearm Purchaser Licensing: Research Evidence to Inform State Policy,” was issued on February 18.

The authors recommend that state gun licensing laws include five core components to maximize public health benefits:

• Firearms safety training
• Fingerprinting
• In-person application
• Comprehensive background checks
• Waiting periods between application and possession of a firearm

Currently 11 states—Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, and Oregon—and Washington, D.C., have active firearm purchasing licensing laws. Of these, five states—Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon—and Washington, D.C., have the five components recommended in the report.

“There is solid evidence from public health research suggesting that when states adopt firearm purchaser licensing laws with measures such as mandatory safety training, comprehensive background checks, and waiting periods, reductions in gun-related homicides and suicides follow,” says study lead author Silvia Villarreal, MPP, director of research translation at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions.

Now, we can all see some of the problems with this.

For one thing, this isn’t about concealed carry permits or anything. This is just to buy a gun. Any firearm.

That means it’ll only be an option for those who have time, money, and access to meet all of these requirements, which many won’t actually be able to do. For the wealthy? This is nothing. For the poor, who also happen to live in high-crime neighborhoods, not so much.

Plus, the Firearms Policy Coalition had an interesting point about this.

Funny how anti-gunners now say police need to be trained to not administer gun permit systems in biased ways, after they previously defended may-issue laws that let those same police deny carry permit applications for literally any reason https://t.co/eOvC0934DU pic.twitter.com/ltwC3Yeot3

— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) February 18, 2025

These measures would disproportionately impact the black community negatively. 

For example, they’re more likely to live in urban environments where training may be harder to come by. They’re more likely to work jobs where taking time off to meet with police means a loss of income, too.

Plus, on average, black families earn less than white and Asian families, creating another hurdle that may be difficult or impossible to clear just to own a firearm.

This also applies to Hispanic gun buyers as well in many cases.

See, the problem here isn’t just the fact that the research is biased. We know that and have shown the problems with gun research in and of itself. Now, Johns Hopkins is using this terrible, garbage research to step into anti-gun advocacy, thus illustrating why the research was biased to begin with.

The Dickey Amendment exists not because it was trying to stop this sort of thing but to stop the American taxpayers from paying for this sort of thing. Free speech means they can still say it, and they can. We just shouldn’t be footing the bill for it.

It’s also why all the claims of “evidence” by anti-gunners should automatically invoke skepticism now and forever more.