Everytown for Gun Safety, the national gun control group founded and funded by billionaire Michael Bloomberg, celebrated antigun Democrat midterm victories during a Nov. 5 virtual townhall briefing and outlined its next moves. Everytown intends to defend bans on commonly owned Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) at the U.S. Supreme Court, mobilize activists to shape public opinion and press artificial intelligence (AI) companies to restrict firearm-related content.
The disclosure about AI is particularly notable. Weeks after Everytown’s affiliated publication criticized firearm-related YouTube content, the Bloomberg-backed gun control organization confirmed it is in direct discussions with major AI companies about their policies.
Election Wins Don’t Rewrite Facts
Everytown Civic Engagement Director Dina Dariotis flaunted the group’s $53 million in election spending, more than 15 million voter contacts and over 300 Moms Demand Action volunteers elected to office.
That demonstrates well-funded political muscle, but not a public mandate for more strict gun control. As NSSF recently reported, an October Pew Research Center survey found that 45 percent of registered voters considered gun policy (broadly speaking) very important to their congressional vote, ranking it 10th among 16 issues.
Everytown’s rhetoric about firearms was equally revealing. Organizer Jessica DeWeerth called rifles covered by so-called “assault weapon” bans “military-style firearms” designed for battle. Erin Dando, Everytown’s Director of National Grassroots Campaigns, called them the “weapon of choice for mass shooters.”
The data says otherwise. The FBI recovered 276 firearms in 217 active-shooter incidents from 2021 through 2025. Handguns accounted for 168 (61 percent), compared with 80 rifles of all types (29 percent). Active-shooter incidents are not the same as the deadliest mass shootings, but these figures offer no basis for treating the AR-15-style semiautomatic rifles as the default firearm in such attacks.
An MSR is a semiautomatic rifle, not a select-fire military rifle capable of automatic fire. NSSF estimates more than 32 million MSRs are in circulation since 1990. Mislabeling them “weapons of war” does not erase their lawful and common everyday uses or their constitutional significance.
The Supreme Court Fight
Everytown is organizing around Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, consolidated cases challenging separate state-level bans on MSRs and similar semiautomatic rifles in Illinois and Connecticut, respectively. Oral arguments are scheduled for Dec. 2.
NSSF filed an amicus brief Sept. 4 explaining that the broad restrictions target firearms commonly owned for lawful purposes, including self-defense, and affect manufacturers, retailers and millions of law-abiding gun owners. The cases implicate the protections recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller and the historical-tradition legal test established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
There is also a procedural complication that added a new twist. Petitioner Cutberto Viramontes requested dismissal from the Illinois case Oct. 29, prompting Cook County to raise standing and mootness questions on Nov. 5. The Grant case, involving the Connecticut challenge, remains unaffected.
Everytown has planned a Dec. 2 rally with the other major gun control groups Brady, GIFFORDS and March For Our Lives, plus press conferences, social media campaigns and a Nov. 18 workshop encouraging supporters to submit letters to the editor to various local and national media outlets. The campaign seeks to shape the narrative even before the justices hear the legal arguments.
A New Push to Influence AI
The briefing’s most consequential disclosure came from Everytown Labs Senior Director Sri Madhavan and Policy Advocacy Director Krystal LoPilato. They discussed the organization’s report, Artificially Assisted Gun Violence: Chatbot Risks and Preventative Steps for Responsible AI Companies, and LoPilato confirmed that several leading AI companies have met with Everytown to review its recommendations. Talks are continuing.
Those recommendations include limits on certain firearm-related content and question responses, human review of conversations suggesting violence or self-harm and stronger procedures for referring serious threats to law enforcement.
Preventing violent crimes and responding to credible threats are legitimate safety objectives. The concern is how these companies distinguish criminal assistance from accurate information about legal activity.
Everytown also urges increased restrictions on instructions concerning unserialized firearm manufacturing and firearm acquisition without background checks. Yet federal law generally allows eligible individuals to make firearms for personal use, subject to applicable restrictions. Some private firearm transfers are likewise lawful without a federal background check, depending on the circumstances and state law.
Sweeping prohibitions could prevent chatbots from explaining what the law actually permits. That would not make lawful conduct illegal; it would simply leave users less informed.
There is a telling parallel. As NSSF reported in September, Everytown’s affiliated publication, The Smoking Gun, criticized firearm-focused YouTube creators and their manufacturer relationships. YouTube tightened branded-content restrictions affecting firearm and ammunition videos almost instantaneously. No evidence establishes that Everytown caused that decision, but the effect on lawful product reviews and industry communication illustrates what overly broad platform rules can mean.
The AI conversations are similarly consequential, although the briefing offered no evidence that any company has adopted Everytown’s proposals.
Everytown’s post-election agenda now stretches from state legislatures and the Supreme Court to the technology Americans use for everyday information. Preventing criminal violence is important. Mischaracterizing commonly owned rifles and blurring the line between criminal instructions and lawful firearm information is not a substitute for protecting the public.
A white-tailed buck is shown walking through a grassy area. Credit Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Half a million servings of nutritious, high-quality protein. It’s hard to quantify how much that means to Michiganders who don’t have enough food, but – by any measure – 138,000 pounds is a lot of meat.
It’s how much venison the Hunters Feeding Michigan program processed in fiscal year 2026. And since 2005, the program has provided over 3.5 million servings of venison to those in need.
Venison donated to Hunters Feeding Michigan gets distributed to food banks, pantries, shelters, soup kitchens and other agencies across the state. Here, packages of ground venison are shown in a food bank freezer. Credit Michigan Department of Natural Resources
How does that staggering amount of meat get to people who need it?
First, generous hunters donate deer they harvest. And, thanks to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources’ partnership with the Food Bank Council of Michigan and Feeding America, that donated venison goes to food banks, pantries, shelters, soup kitchens and other agencies across the state.
But there’s a step in between that’s essential to the program’s success.
“Without the support of our processors, the program simply wouldn’t be possible,” Joe Presgrove, DNR Hunters Feeding Michigan program specialist, said.
A network of participating meat processors around the state turns donated deer into the ground venison that Hunters Feeding Michigan distributes. There is no cost to the deer donor. Monetary donations, from those who buy a hunting or fishing license and from others who contribute online, help pay for the processors’ work.
“When people choose to donate while purchasing a license, or through our contribution site for nonhunters, they’re not only helping neighbors in need through local food banks – they’re also supporting small businesses in their own communities,” Presgrove said.
In the past five years alone, more than $1.2 million has been raised to support Hunters Feeding Michigan processors.
Meet the meat makers
Left to right, Adam, Becky and Dean Eller, owners of Carson Village Market in Carson City, Michigan. Credit Michigan Department of Natural Resources
“Hunters Feeding Michigan is a wonderful program that brings together hunters, local meat processors, and communities to make a real difference in the lives of Michigan families,” Barbie Kolodica, president of the Michigan Meat Association, said. “Small, independent meat processors are the backbone of this program. These businesses already work long hours during hunting season, yet they step up to donate their time, skills, equipment and resources to help turn donated venison into nutritious meals for families facing food insecurity.”
Carson Village Market in Carson City, Michigan, a family-owned business, has been processing deer since 1979.
Owner Adam Eller got connected to the Hunters Feeding Michigan program through hunting.
“It sounded like a great program, and we’ve been involved a long time,” he said. “It’s been growing every year.”
Eller said his store’s participation in the program started out small, but now they’re one of the top contributors of donated venison in the state.
“That’s amazing to think about,” he said.
Carson Village Market processed 26,000 pounds of venison for Hunters Feeding Michigan in fiscal year 2026.
A good portion of that stems from the store processing deer that come in during donation drives throughout the state, which some other processors may not have the capacity for.
Donated venison is shown hanging, waiting for processing. The Hunters Feeding Michigan program processed 138,000 pounds of venison in fiscal year 2026. Credit Michigan Department of Natural Resources
“It’s hard for some processors to take on more work in addition to their own normal processing load,” Eller said. “We have developed an efficient system so we can take on extra workflow.”
The store has also implemented a unique incentive for people to donate to Hunters Feeding Michigan. When hunters buy a deer license at Carson Village Market, they get a punch card – five deer donated gets them a discount on processing for their own deer.
Eller sees the benefits of Hunters Feeding Michigan to his community on multiple fronts.
For farmers dealing with deer population issues or hunters trying to get the buck-to-doe ratio a little closer, but who can’t eat all the deer they harvest, he said, “It gives them an out – no cost to them, deer get utilized, everything about that is good.”
In his small community, Eller also hears from churches about venison donated through the program.
“They say how wonderful it is to have that protein,” he said. “They’re struggling, and it’s a big help to them.”
He also sees the program as a way to show that hunters give back and are feeding people in need.
“Hunters are some of the biggest conservationists and get such a bad name in some eyes,” he said. “This is a good thing hunters do, and people can see that.”
Left to right, Dave Laing of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division, who helped move Hunters Feeding Michigan refrigerated trailers this past summer, and Amanda and Tim Nimtz, owners of Clear Water Meats in Eau Claire, Michigan. Credit Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Tim Nimtz and his wife Amanda started their processing business, Clear Water Meats in Eau Claire, Michigan, in 2015. They also have a family farm, mostly hay but also cattle and some grain crops, operating since 1916.
He said the business became part of Hunters Feeding Michigan because there definitely was a need for it in his area: “There were no processors around.”
Nimtz calls it a “good partnership,” explaining that, because he and his family are also farmers, “We understand the need to address overpopulations of deer and to keep everything in balance in the ecosystem.”
Many of the deer donated to Hunters Feeding Michigan at his facility are harvested with deer damage permits, issued to farmers experiencing crop damage by deer. The program provides refrigerated trailers to landowners across southern Michigan, allowing them to store these deer until they can be processed and to donate them.
In this way, Nimtz said Hunters Feeding Michigan is “bridging the gap between farmers trying to reduce deer populations and people in need.
“We don’t like to see anything go to waste.”
Aside from farmers, Nimtz said, the program also provides opportunities for those who want to hunt but don’t necessarily have room for venison, don’t like to eat it or don’t have the funds for deer processing.
He said Clear Water Meats also has participated in Hunters Feeding Michigan’s Give a Pound pilot program, where hunters can drop a pound or 2, or 5, of their own processed venison into a chest freezer in the store.
Hunters Feeding Michigan’s Give a Pound pilot program allows hunters to drop packages of their own processed venison into a chest freezer, like this one shown at Clear Water Meats in Eau Claire, Michigan. Credit Michigan Department of Natural Resources
“That went over very well,” Nimtz said. “Filled that thing all the way to the top.”
And – because the program doesn’t have to pay for processing in this case – “that’s completely donations.”
Laura Soderman and her husband have owned it for the last six years. She said they always used to donate meat, from pigs raised for fairs, to local food pantries.
Hunters Feeding Michigan, she said, “helps bring donations to an organization that’s willing to distribute evenly among Michigan.”
Her business gets several phone calls a day, making sure they’re still taking deer donations.
Soderman said she hears from hunters in her community that they are “happy their meat is being used, that the meat won’t go to waste.”
If hunters just want to keep the hide or the cape from their deer, but want to donate the meat, there is no charge to the hunter for that.
“We’re just happy to be there to help, to help the hunters if they don’t have any place to drop off donations and to help those who need the meat,” Soderman said.
Kolodica echoed the thought that, for participating processors, it’s about more than processing meat.
Tim Nimtz, owner of Clear Water Meats in Eau Claire, Michigan, unloads a donated deer from a trailer with the help of a DNR staffer. Credit Michigan Department of Natural Resources
“It is an opportunity to give back to their communities, build relationships with local hunters, and demonstrate the important role small businesses play in fighting hunger,” she said. “The Michigan Meat Association is incredibly proud of the processors who participate in Hunters Feeding Michigan. Their dedication shows that even small, family-owned businesses can make a tremendous impact. Every pound of donated venison represents more than just food on a table; it represents neighbors helping neighbors and communities coming together to take care of their own.”
She said she hopes to see even more processors get involved as the program continues to grow.
Presgrove hopes to be able to expand Hunters Feeding Michigan beyond what it can accomplish with current funding from donations.
“With additional funding, the program could feed even more Michiganders and continue to support small business," he said.
How can you help?
There are several ways to join Hunters Feeding Michigan’s efforts to help provide food for families in need:
Help offset the cost of processing and packaging venison by making a monetary donation when you purchase your hunting or fishing license. If you purchase your license on DNR eLicense or the Michigan DNR Hunt Fish app, you can add your donation at checkout. If purchasing your license at a store, simply tell the retailer that you want to make a donation to the Hunters Feeding Michigan program.
The New York Times has an article out arguing the “dangerous or unusual” canard that antigunners have been pushing for years. It won’t surprise you to learn that the Times’ latest on gun rights is misleading in several ways.
The main argument is that Blackstone originally used “dangerous or unusual” when describing permissible limits on gun rights, not “dangerous and unusual,” but Scalia screwed it up in his Heller opinion and misquoted Blackstone. That’s true, but the problem with making a lot of hay over that is tons of other writers of the era did use “dangerous and unusual the way Scalia did.
Scalia attributed the “and” to the wrong source, but he didn’t invent it out of whole cloth. As the Times article later acknowledges, to its credit, the phrase “dangerous and unusual” predates Blackstone by fifty three years, with William Hawkins using it back in 1716.
Over the next two centuries, some courts used “and,” some used “or,” but they basically meant and referred to the same thing: weapons that were carried mostly by criminals, and typically concealed.
That’s what this article really overlooks; “Dangerous and/or unusual,” regardless of the form used, was never about possession bans. How could it be, no gun or arm was every banned in that way. It was about restrictions on a type of carry. Alan Beck wrote his amicus brief for Viramontes on this topic, and this article in the Reload covers it in short form.
The article says that “dangerous and unusual” is bad because it tests for commonality, as all guns are dangerous. But how would its preferred phrasing, “dangerous or unusual,” even be workable?
All guns are dangerous, would that mean you can ban all guns even if they’re common?
Sidenote: these are the kinds of jabs you don’t get when it’s a constitutional right…other than the Second Amendment.
A ton of civil rights case law comes from activist groups. That and criminal defendants make up most of it, probably. Yet when the NAACP or ACLU sue to effect change, articles about that litigation don’t insert lines like this.
Another cheap shot. The Second Amendment says that the people have the right to keep and bear arms, and it shall not be infringed. That amendment means absolutely nothing at all if the government can ban what is literally the most popular rifle in the country.
The authors of this article have a beef with the Second Amendment itself and they’re weakly trying to hide that as some dispute about its interpretation.
This is also false. The Second Amendment was treated explicitly as an individual right (albeit one that limited only the federal government) in Cruikshank in the 19th century. It was also implicitly treated as an individual right in the Miller case in the 1930s. Plus, in various dicta it was treated as an individual right as well. Further, as I’ve written about extensively, there is overwhelming scholarly commentary pre-1900 that considers the Second Amendment an individual right. Heller merely confirmed this history, and restated it in plain English for the modern era.
It isn’t an important distinction. Whether they used “or” or “and,” the phrase meant the same thing in practice.
As support for their position, the authors cite just one historian before concluding, Saul Cornell. Nothing from other scholars like Dave Kopel, Rob Leider, etc.
Cornell has never once reached any conclusion that would undermine the anti-gun side. Regardless, even if it were “unusually dangerous” as the standard, that would be no different than “dangerous and unusual,” at least for the purposes of bans on guns like AR15s.
Such rifles aren’t “unusually dangerous” because again, they’re the most common rifle in the country. While they’re very lethal weapons, no doubt, their danger is in no way unusual relative to other modern firearms, or at least amongst other modern rifles.
Eric Maynard, an Education Division assistant chief, shows a wide-eyed youngster a young alligator as part of the many experiences made available to youth during the two-day Generation Conservation Summit.
The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission’s second Generation Conservation Summit can boast a 68 percent growth rate in schools or groups participating from Year One, and more than 100 percent growth over last year in students who attended the two-day event at Bank OZK Arena and the Hot Springs Convention Center Nov. 4-5.
An astute businessman like former AGFC commissioner Bobby Martin, who has led such national brands as The Gap Inc., obviously will like those growth figures.
“It’s amazing,” Martin said at the conclusion of the summit, with award winners mingling about and many of the more than 2,000 students who attended heading home after two days. “I think all of us always thought that this could work, but now there’s no question about believing it. You’re seeing the kids participate, the teachers are engaging and schools are participating. To see that kind of growth, that just has to continue to raise our expectations even greater for next year.”
The number of participating schools rose from 110 last November to 185 this year. Some came to learn and engage in outdoor experiences, while others were serious competitors, approaching the summit similar to a track meet: Students entered more than two dozen categories of conservation experiences modeled after divisions within the AGFC itself. Jasper was the winner among elementary schools, while Lincoln won both the middle and high school divisions. Elementary and middle school teams had Wednesday to themselves, though many youngsters stuck around for Thursday, when high school competitions were held. Lincoln’s high school students outdistanced strong showings from Springdale Har-Ber, Cossatot, Lead Hill and Genoa Central during Thursday’s program.
TV personality and ecologist Dr. Rae Wynn-Grant told youth at Wednesday’s summit keynote address that there “is a place in conservation” for all of them.
Rae Wynn-Grant, Ph.D., the host of NBC’s “Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom,” gave the summit’s keynote on Wednesday evening. Grant’s talk likely resonated with some students, noting she grew up “a very urban kid with no outdoor experiences.” But magazines and outdoor TV shows, like “Crocodile Hunter,” exposed her to animals and stirred her interest as a youngster, creating her path to work with animals. She studied abroad in college in Kenya, helping animals survive and thrive.
She’s now a wildlife ecologist, specifically for large carnivores, with a focus on bears. She’s filmed TV episodes for “Wild Kingdom” and for PBS in Arkansas, including features on bears and the Red River’s alligator gars.
Grant told the kids, “There is a place in wildlife conservation for you.”
That’s what Martin, Commission chairman from 2022-24, and Mary Beth Hatch, chief of the AGFC’s Education Division, had in mind for GenCon when it was conceived: bring students from elementary age to high school together to experience conservation in its many forms.
This type of “sandbox” teaches students how water erodes land and what the AGFC’s Stream Team must do to combat it.
Observers of GenCon activities last week might see youngsters playing with sand; actually, that sand filled a stream table and they were learning how water changes land formations and how the AGFC’s Stream Team and Stream Habitat programs restore areas damaged by erosion. Participants checked out the internal anatomy of a 20-foot-tall turkey, a 30-foot-long largemouth bass and climbed through a massive inflatable cave that complemented one of last year’s favorites: the smaller mobile cave for spelunking. There was rock climbing, casting fishing lures at targets, catching trout, shooting air rifles, designing a two-page spread that could run in Arkansas Wildlife Magazine or an AGFC nature center exhibit, and many other experiences and competitions.
“You know, when we talked through this idea before it all started in Year One, this is what I’ve said, and it still stands right now, is that this entire event is meant to replicate the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission,” Hatch said. “It represents all the divisions in the agency. Sure, Education is leading it, and we’re the ones putting it on, but you can look around the event, you can look at the judges, you can look at the leads, they literally come from every division in our agency. And that's because we run like that.”
Increased sponsorships for experiences were also noticeable. For example, Buc-ee's, the famed Houston-based chain of massive gasoline and shopping stores that recently opened its first location in Arkansas near Benton, sponsored the culinary competition, won by Norfork High School with their spin on specklebelly goose.
Hatch acknowledged the Arkansas Game and Fish Foundation for its help in bringing in additional sponsors, as well as the work Martin has done since the idea of GenCon began.
Martin said, “This is not going to happen without the right kind of sponsorship and support, and the bigger it gets, the more is going to be required. But, we’re seeing the result with the kids and what we know that means to the future of Arkansas. It’s about as exciting as anything I think could be going on for young people in this state.”
A couple of high school anglers take on the “pond” with targets for casting their lures, while the 30-foot-long inflatable largemouth bass in the background attracts attention on the Convention Center floor.
Other notable wins among the high schoolers were Hamburg High both for STEM in Conservation and GIS Story Map Design; Lincoln with its social media campaign and Nature Center Exhibit Design; Izard County STEM in Debate; Har-Ber in the Quiz Bowl and Lonoke’s Zach Miller and Jacob Hale in Game Calling.
