Over the weekend I wrote about a relatively new outfit called Bridging the Divide that's spearheaded by Tufts University's Dr. Michael Siegel. The group, which includes some gun owners and Second Amendment supporters alongside gun control activists, has put together a list of eight recommendations for reducing misuse of firearms, which Siegel claims shows it's "possible to break through polarization and achieve a consensus on contentious policy issues."
If you read my post, you know that I'm not particularly enamored with the proposals, and as turns out I'm not alone.
They approached us last week about joining the press conference.
— MN Gun Owners Caucus (@mnguncaucus) March 4, 2026
Our reply was pretty brief. https://t.co/VeiF5xaMQ2 pic.twitter.com/vtCz85gQtw
It wasn't a bad idea for Siegel and company to reach out to MN Gun Owners Caucus for support, but the lack of interest isn't surprising. The proposals include (among other things) "red flag" laws, state-level universal background checks, and adding convictions for violent misdemeanors as a disqualifying factor for gun ownership (while removing non-violent felonies).
To be fair, there are some positives for gun owners included in the list of proposals. Tax incentives for gun safes; removing restrictions on the voluntary transfer of guns from people at risk of self-harm to FFLs (and allowing them to get their guns back when they're ready); and funding for behavioral threat assessment, mental health resources, safety, and security measures in schools are all measures I and most gun owners could get behind. I've been told that the proposals also include the repeal of any "redundant state-level NFA item restrictions", no restrictions on privately manufactured firearms, and "massive" carveouts to the background check law for concealed carry licensees, members of some gun clubs, and other categories.
One of the problems is that many of the supposed positives for gun owners would be mooted by federal law. Even if states removed non-violent felons from the list of prohibited persons, for instance, 922(g)(1) still bars them from possessing firearms. The group is also supporting removing the prohibition of gun purchases by persons who use marijuana, but that too is a federal prohibition (though one that is likely to be undone by the Supreme Court later this year).
Another problem with Bridging the Divide is its makeup. Yes, there are 11 self-proclaimed gun owners among the 23 individuals who came together on these proposals, but as we know, simply owning a gun doesn't make someone a Second Amendment advocate. Rob Pincus, David Yamane, Lara Cullinane-Smith, and Robert "B.J." Campbell are the only names I recognized from the 2A space, and none of them are affiliated with any major Second Amendment organization (though Pincus is vice president of the group Second Amendment Organization, Cullinane-Smith is the national spokesperson for the Liberal Gun Club, and Campbell is involved with Open Source Defense).
Meanwhile, employees of Brady, Center for American Progress, 97 Percent, States United to End Gun Violence, and Global Action on Gun Violence participated in the panel.
Now, it may very well be the case that Siegel and his team at Tufts reached out to groups like GOA, FPC, SAF, NAGR, and NRA to see if anyone from those orgs would be willing to participate and received negative replies or no reply at all. But if you've got reps from Brady; the former president of Handgun Control, Inc.; and the guy who assisted Mexico in suing U.S. gunmakers over cartel violence and no one from a major 2A organization I think it's easy for many 2A advocates to see the makeup of the panel as slanted towards gun control.
As I wrote in my prior coverage:
One last issue with the proposal is that it fails to treat gun ownership as a positive. Yes, I know the purpose is to prevent the misuse of firearms, but a great way to do that is to give people hands-on experience. Where's the proposal to make trap shooting an accredited sport? Where's the legislation expanding the number of public ranges in Wisconsin? The group proposes giving grants to "community gun violence intervention programs," so what about grants to junior shooting teams, Women on Target, Girl and a Gun Club, National African American Gun Association, and other groups that provide folks with a way to introduce themselves to shooting in a safe and responsible setting?
What about expediting concealed carry permits for individuals who've had to take out an order of protection, or using a concealed carry license in lieu of a background check? If Siegel and his crew really want support from more Second Amendment advocates they've got some work to do, including doing something to actually foster a culture of responsible gun ownership and respect for our right to keep and bear arms.
I stand by that assessment. No, I don't think everyone involved in Bridging the Divide is trying to eradicate the Second Amendment, but if the group is truly trying to bridge the divide between gun control activists and 2A supporters, I don't think their current proposals are enough. That's clearly the case for the MN Gun Owners Caucus, but I suspect that's true for many other 2A advocates as well.
Editor’s Note: The radical left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.
Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member