ProPublica’s Falsehoods Exposed: How Anti-Gun Bias Distorts the Truth About Lawful Gun Owner Data

In an article titled “Without Knowledge or Consent,” Corey G. Johnson at ProPublica claims to expose a “secret” effort by the gun industry to create a vast, clandestine database of gun owners. But the reality is far less sensational—and far more ethical—than what ProPublica wants you to believe.

In a statement released to AmmoLand News by the Managing Director for Public Affairs of the NSSF, Mark Oliva, he responded:

“NSSF does not maintain a database of gun owners. This was specifically told to ProPublica [directly to Corey G. Johnson] on several occasions.”

Despite this, the reporter chose to accept misrepresentations of the truth as fact. NSSF used information to reach gun owners for the #GUNVOTE voter education program that was supplied by a very limited number of firearm manufacturers. That information was purged after those elections were complete. NSSF uses commercially-available data to reach voters for #GUNVOTE program to educate voters on how to vote, where to register, and where to vote on Election Day.”

ProPublica’s report was based on decades-old information to arrive at a pre-ordained narrative just days before the election. These allegations were previously raised by U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) in an attempt to discredit The Firearm Industry Trade Association. The allegations were not true then and are not true today.

“NSSF maintains that gun owner privacy is paramount to ensuring the free exercise of Second Amendment rights. That is why NSSF has been the leading voice to pass laws Second Amendment Privacy Acts in 17 states to bar financial institutions from collecting data related to firearm and ammunition purchases that would create a back-door gun registry. NSSF also supports the Protecting Privacy in Purchases Act introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Congresswoman Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) and companion legislation by U.S. Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tennessee) in the U.S. Senate that would make this a federal law.

No American should be ever placed on a government watchlist for exercising their Constitutionally-protected rights.”

Let’s break down ProPublica’s major claims and reveal where they misrepresent facts, sensationalize normal practices, and rely on biased assumptions to paint the NSSF (National Shooting Sports Foundation) and gun manufacturers in an unfairly negative light.

Claim 1: The NSSF Maintains a Massive Gun Owner Database Without Consent

ProPublica’s Version: ProPublica reporter Johnson suggests that the NSSF built and maintains a massive, permanent database of gun owners’ private data to influence elections. According to ProPublica, this “database” includes personal, sensitive information and has been used to target gun owners without their knowledge or consent.

The Truth (According to NSSF): The NSSF has made it clear that no such permanent, centralized database of gun owners exists. Mark Oliva, the Managing Director for Public Affairs of the NSSF, stated in a quote to AmmoLand News that while limited data was used in past election cycles for the #GUNVOTE program, any information gathered was temporary and was purged after the elections.

The NSSF now exclusively uses commercially available data—data that any organization can legally access for outreach. ProPublica’s portrayal of a vast, hidden gun owner registry is false and misleading.

Debunking the Claim: Let’s be clear: ProPublica’s claim of a “permanent gun owner database” is pure fiction. The NSSF only temporarily utilized data for specific voter education campaigns, which was deleted afterward. Their practices are in line with countless other advocacy organizations that legally use commercial data to engage their audience.

ProPublica’s implication that this is a “secret” database is unfounded and completely out of line with industry norms.

Claim 2: NSSF Used Gun Owners’ Data Without Consent

In ProPublica’s Version of Reality: The “award-winning” reporter at ProPublica alleges that gun manufacturers like Glock and Smith & Wesson handed over sensitive customer information to the NSSF without customers’ consent, violating their privacy.

The Truth (According to NSSF): First, the data originated from warranty cards, which legally allow manufacturers to use customer information for limited marketing and outreach purposes. NSSF temporarily used some of this information to conduct the #GUNVOTE campaign, which educates voters about where to register and vote. NSSF even confirmed that any non-commercial data was purged after each election cycle.

Debunking the Claim: Here’s what ProPublica leaves out: the warranty cards explicitly mention third-party data sharing for marketing purposes. Marketing is a broad term that includes outreach to educate voters. In short, NSSF’s actions were entirely within legal limits and clearly disclosed to customers.

The article’s framing of “without consent” is nothing more than a misleading twist by a biased reporter on common advocacy practices.

Claim 3: Hypocrisy in NSSF’s Privacy Advocacy

ProPublica’s Version: The article paints the NSSF as hypocritical for opposing government gun registries while allegedly building a private registry of its own for political purposes. According to ProPublica, this contradicts the NSSF’s support of privacy for gun owners.

The Truth (According to NSSF): The NSSF has always been upfront about its stance against permanent, centralized gun registries—especially those controlled by the government, which could infringe on Americans’ privacy and Second Amendment rights. The NSSF’s temporary use of data for specific voter education efforts does not conflict with its advocacy for gun owner privacy.

In fact, NSSF has led efforts to pass the Second Amendment Privacy Acts in 17 states and has championed federal privacy bills to prevent financial institutions from tracking firearms purchases and creating backdoor registries. ProPublica’s claim of hypocrisy ignores the reality: NSSF’s privacy advocacy protects gun owners from government overreach, not temporary election outreach by private groups.

Debunking the Claim: The NSSF’s stance on gun owner privacy aligns perfectly with its mission. ProPublica’s attempt to conflate the NSSF’s anti-government registry position with its own temporary data use is a clear misrepresentation.

There’s a vast difference between a government-controlled gun registry and temporary data used by an advocacy organization for lawful voter education.

Claim 4: Misrepresentation of Data Sharing Practices with Cambridge Analytica

ProPublica’s Version: The article implies that the NSSF provided sensitive gun owner data to Cambridge Analytica to manipulate elections, evoking a completely unrelated Cambridge Analytica controversy with data misuse in other contexts.

The Truth (According to NSSF): There’s no evidence supporting ProPublica’s implication that NSSF gave Cambridge Analytica direct access to sensitive or personal gun owner data. The NSSF has repeatedly stated that any data used was legally sourced, temporary, and disposed of after election campaigns. NSSF’s current data sources are commercial and legal, and there’s zero evidence of unique or sensitive gun owner data being shared with Cambridge Analytica.

Debunking the Claim: This claim is speculative at best, with ProPublica offering no evidence to support it. Their attempt to connect the NSSF to the controversial Cambridge Analytica saga is nothing more than an attempt to sensationalize the story and create guilt by association.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation’s data-sharing practices are lawful and common among advocacy groups, unlike what ProPublica suggests.

Claim 5: Decades-Old Allegations Framed as Breaking News

ProPublica’s Version: ProPublica presents this story as if they discovered a new, ground-breaking revelation, suggesting that the NSSF has been secretly operating this program for years, with the aim of influencing elections without gun owners’ knowledge.

The Truth (According to NSSF): ProPublica is recycling allegations that have been raised—and debunked—before. These claims date back to accusations made by Senator Richard Blumenthal, who has publicly criticized the gun industry and worked to regulate it. In fact, much of the “revelations” in ProPublica’s article involve practices and claims that were addressed by the NSSF years ago.

ProPublica’s attempt to revive these decades-old claims right before an election appears calculated to sway public opinion rather than reveal anything genuinely new.

Debunking the Claim: This is no breaking story. It’s old news, repackaged as “investigative reporting” to fit an anti-gun narrative.

The timing alone—just days before an election and the use of a lead image of Donald Trump—by an author that likes to repost tweets from Joe Biden bragging about passing gun control, hints at the real motivation behind the article: influencing voter and discrediting a prominent pro-Second Amendment organization.

Conclusion: ProPublica’s Anti-Gun Bias and Misleading Reporting

ProPublica’s article “Without Knowledge or Consent” purports to expose wrongdoing but falls flat under scrutiny. Here’s the bottom line:

• There is No Permanent Database: The NSSF does not maintain any permanent gun owner database. Their voter outreach data is temporary and purged after each election.
• Transparent and Lawful Data Use: The NSSF’s limited data use for #GUNVOTE was within legal limits, consistent with industry norms, and clearly permitted by warranty card disclosures.
• Hypocrisy Claims Are Baseless: The NSSF’s advocacy against government registries is consistent with its mission to protect gun owner privacy from government overreach, not temporary election outreach.
• Commercially Sourced Data: The NSSF’s current data practices rely on commercially available sources, not sensitive gun owner data, as ProPublica misleadingly suggests.

ProPublica’s hit piece by a so-called ‘investigative journalist‘ reflects clear anti-gun bias, recycling old claims and framing them as revelations to influence readers. In reality, NSSF’s data practices are transparent, common, and legal, a far cry from the sensationalist accusations of “secret databases” and privacy violations.

ProPublica’s hack-job of an article serves as a reminder to be vigilant about the news sources we trust, especially on topics as important as our GOD given Second Amendment rights.