This transcript was created using speech recognition software. While it has been reviewed by human transcribers, it may contain errors. Please review the episode audio before quoting from this transcript and email transcripts@nytimes.com with any questions.

From “The New York Times,” I’m Rachel Abrams. This is “The Daily.”

On the previous episode of the show, we talked to a lawyer coming up with creative arguments to get around laws favoring gun rights. Today, my colleague Mike McIntire on the mysterious study helping to strengthen gun rights around the country and the person behind that study.

It’s Thursday, June 20.

So, Mike, welcome to the show. Tell me, how did you first get started with this reporting?

So I’ve been covering gun issues for quite some time. And since the Supreme Court decision in 2022, in a case called New York State Rifle and Pistol Association versus Bruen, that really changed the landscape of firearms litigation in the country. It was probably the most consequential Supreme Court Second Amendment case in decades.

And what it did was it really upended our previous understanding of the Second Amendment by doing two things. One is that it, for the first time, found a Second Amendment right to carry a firearm outside the home. And then secondly, and most importantly, established a new test for gun restrictions and whether or not they are in violation of the Second Amendment. Essentially, Bruen opened a door for litigants to argue that because a gun is commonly used for self-defense, it makes it harder to justify a law that would ban it.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

And so as a result of the Bruen test that was created, you have seen this tsunami of litigation take place across the country.

You have many, many court cases happening, attempting to knock down these gun restrictions.

So in the course of looking at these hundreds of lawsuits, one thing stood out to me which was somewhat surprising. I started seeing the same name over and over again, which I had not recognized before. And it was a university professor named William English who had conducted a survey of gun owners in 2021. And,

That survey has been cited repeatedly in these lawsuits.

His name was showing up over and over again.

Legal briefs and motions, oral arguments in appellate courts.

And I was intrigued, mainly because I had never heard of him before.

And what exactly did this study say?

What made the study interesting and important was, first of all, the scope of it. It was the largest of its kind in many, many years, probably since the 1990s. He’d surveyed over 16,000 gun owners and asked several key questions.

So one of them was trying to find out how often gun owners use their firearms for self-defense. And then two other questions dealt with whether or not they own AR-15 rifles, commonly referred to sometimes as assault weapons, or high capacity magazines, which are magazines that hold 10 or more rounds. And those are kind of the central parts of the survey.

And what was the overall finding from this study? Did it tell us how many people were actually using guns, how frequently, how common?

So the study found a few things. One was that gun owners reported using their guns for self-defense approximately 1.7 million times a year.

Wow.

And in terms of the types of firearms that people like to own, it also found that AR-15s and high capacity magazines are popular. And just by coincidence, those three areas are ones that are very important to the gun lobby and its litigation campaign. So if you, for instance, were able to show that they are what the court considers to be in common use for lawful purposes, then that also makes it harder to make the claim that they should somehow be banned or restricted.

So these lawyers all over the country are citing a study that really bolsters the case that these semi-automatic weapons are common, that they often have high capacity magazines, that they’re basically used over and over again in self-defense. Right?

Yeah. I mean, it really serves the gun rights argument pretty well, these findings. And that caused me to take a closer look at just what the survey was about and who Dr. English was. I had never heard of him before, as I mentioned. Because I’ve written about gun issues for quite some time, and the universe of firearms scholars is actually pretty small, many of them I talked to were unfamiliar with him as well. So there was just a little bit of a mystery here as to where he came from and what the origins of this survey was.

So I started to look more into how the survey was done. And one thing that was curious to me was the survey had not been published in a peer reviewed journal, which is not required, but it certainly lends credibility and strength to your findings if you were to do that. Instead, it was uploaded to a website where basically anybody can upload an unpublished academic paper. He also didn’t disclose the source of funding for it, which again is not required, but it’s pretty standard in academic circles.

So at this point, Mike, you’re seeing some issues around transparency that are raising some alarm bells, but you’re not really sure what to make of it yet, it sounds like.

Yeah, I think that’s true. I mean, it just raised more questions for me. And so one way to really get a handle on what the survey says and how it was conducted is to look at the raw data. So somewhere there has to be a file with all of the questions that were asked and the responses from people. But he did not post the raw data along with his papers until about two years later. I went looking for it and I did manage to locate it and download it and looked at it myself.

And what did you find?

Well, a couple of things really kind of stood out. One was the questions that were asked of the respondents were phrased differently than how he portrayed them in the papers he wrote about his results. So in the papers that he posted to this website explaining the findings of the survey, he would describe the question asked as, for instance, have you ever used your gun for self-defense, or have you ever owned an AR-15?

But the actual questions that were presented to the respondents had a little preamble or an introduction, which was not described in his papers. And I’ll give you an example. On the question of have you ever used your gun for self-defense, that was actually preceded by a statement that said “Many policy makers recognize that a large number of people participate in shooting sports, but question how often guns are used for self-defense.”

Oh, wow.

There was a similar lack of transparency on another question that was asked about high capacity magazines. And it started out by saying “Some have argued that few people actually want or use high capacity magazines, and answering this will help us establish how popular these magazines are.”

That phrasing was not included in the papers that he posted describing his survey findings. The reason that’s important is because social scientists will tell you that the phrasing of the questions is crucial to determining how someone’s going to answer. And if you start off by sort of giving a little preamble that implies that there are forces out there who might question how often you really use your gun or want your gun, it has a potential to skew the results in a certain direction. And in addition to that, there are just a couple of other things I found curious in looking at the raw data. I mean, one was the very broad definition he used of what it means to defend yourself with a gun. It allowed for, for instance, situations in which somebody didn’t even show the gun, or maybe even just told someone they had a gun.

And also, it didn’t specify what time frame you may have done this. And so typically, if you’re trying to figure out what the current state of events is for defensive gun use, you might ask have you ever done it in the past year or past two years or whatever. This basically asked, have you ever done it in your lifetime. So you could have somebody who may have used a gun for self-defense back in the 1970s, and that counts.

Oh, wow.

There were similar phrasing of questions, for instance, about whether you’ve ever owned an AR-15. And, again, it was allowing people to count, whether they had one 10, 20, 30 years ago, but maybe not today.

So what does this say about the actual numbers in the study?

So the figure I mentioned of 1.67 million defensive gun uses a year, in talking to other experts on this, I mean, that is definitely on the high end of the range. There are other studies that put the number as less than 100,000 times a year.

That’s quite a range.

Right. And this is where the methodology becomes important because the way the survey is conducted, the way the questions are asked, and all of that affects the results.

So, Mike, you find the study, it’s showing up in gun cases all over the country where people are trying to overturn state gun laws. But it also seems like you’re seeing some red flags with how the survey was actually conducted. So at this point, tell me what you’re thinking.

Well, I’m thinking pretty specifically I need to know a lot more about this survey.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Where did it come from? Who financed it? And who is Dr. English?

We’ll be right back.

So, Mike, what did you find out about Dr. William English?

So he’s a political scientist and economist at Georgetown University. He was a research fellow at Harvard for a few years before joining Georgetown in 2016.

He had a fairly established track record of published papers on issues of social science, the humanities, ethics, and public policy. His studies have focused a lot on behavioral issues and what incentives are for people to behave in certain ways, and that’s part of what his academic background is.

So it doesn’t sound like he has much of a track record on gun issues specifically.

Right. At least publicly, there’s nothing which indicates he had done research on guns, which made his debut with his survey just a little bit unusual. So I wanted to find out more about how he got involved with that. And the most obvious way to do that is to try to talk to him.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

So I emailed him. I didn’t hear anything back, so I emailed him again. I got no response.

[PHONE RINGING]

I tried calling his office at Georgetown.

[PHONE RINGING]

I found his cell phone number.

Called that and left a message.

Nothing. I texted him. I didn’t get a response.

I visited his office at Georgetown University.

[KNOCKING ON DOOR]

[MUSIC PLAYING] He wasn’t there. And I finally decided just to visit his house.

[DOORBELL RINGING]

And so I walked up to the front door, rang the bell, waited. But there was no response.

Wow.

And I wasn’t the only one having difficulty getting him to talk about the survey. I discovered in court records that the State of Washington, who they were being sued by a gun rights group which had cited Dr. English’s survey, and lawyers for the state had tried to talk to him as well about the survey.

They emailed him. They tried to call him. They sent a certified letter. And eventually, they issued a subpoena to try to get him to respond. And at some point, faced with the possibility that the court was going to compel his testimony, the plaintiffs in that case agreed to withdraw all references to his research from their case in order to —

Oh, wow.

— not have him submit to questions. This was starting to seem very strange to me. I mean, you’ve rarely heard of an academic who isn’t eager to talk about their work. And in this particular case, especially, it was something that was gaining such influence and traction in the world of litigation. So there were just sort of a lot of things which were raising questions in my mind about why is he so reluctant to talk about this.

So at this point, it sounds like you’re kind of at a reporting dead end, at least when it comes to getting Dr. English to explain his work to you and how he conducted the survey.

Yes. We did find one instance where Dr. English did discuss his work publicly.

It was on this podcast called “The Reload,” which is a firearms news site.

And on the podcast, he says that his survey was part of research he was doing for a book project.

He hasn’t published the book yet. He does talk about his methodology. And —

Actually says he thinks his estimate for self-defense may be a bit conservative.

The one thing he didn’t talk about was how the research was funded. And it’s a pretty standard thing in social science research to disclose that, because studies like this are not cheap. So I kept digging into the records I could find. And looking at case files, I discovered something which I had not previously known and was not widely publicly known, which is that Dr. English had served as a paid expert witness for pro-gun plaintiffs in at least four cases before he’d done the survey.

So he might not actually be as impartial of a researcher as he presents himself to be?

Well, it’s not uncommon for academic scholars to serve as witnesses in lawsuits for one side or the other. But here, with these cases, he was serving as a paid expert for the pro-gun side of the litigation. And there was one case in particular which became important.

It was in 2019 in Vermont. And an NRA-backed group was challenging a state ban on high capacity magazines. And they wanted to do a survey of Vermont gun owners to find out how common those high capacity magazines were. And so in order to do the survey, they hired Dr. English to do it. And he produced an expert report for them saying that high capacity magazines are popular and commonly used for self-defense.

Mm, OK.

Now, he would say later in a deposition that he was paid $20,000 to do the survey in the Vermont case. The reason that’s important is because when he produced his national survey in 2021, he described that earlier Vermont survey as proof of concept for the national survey. What he doesn’t say is that Vermont survey was actually commissioned by pro-gun plaintiffs in an NRA-backed lawsuit. That’s a pretty important point to note, but that’s not explained in his national survey, which he did later.

So now you’re starting to form a real picture of where some of Dr. English’s funding is coming from?

Yeah. It still didn’t help me understand, though, how the national firearms survey that he did was funded. And so to try to get a better understanding of that, I went back to the court record and looked at one of the filings that Dr. English did with a group called The Center for Human Liberty. It was an organization that joined with him in filing a court brief.

And I just was curious about what that organization was. It sounds like a very lofty goal, The Center for Human Liberty. It turns out that it was created just a couple of months before it appeared with him in this court filing.

Oh, wow.

It has no staff. It uses, for a physical address, a virtual office provider in Las Vegas. And the whole thing just turned out to be basically kind of a phantom organization.

It turned out that this thing was funded and created by the founders of The Firearms Policy Coalition, which is a very aggressive litigation group behind a lot of the lawsuits that we see in courts trying to overturn gun restrictions. And that got me into the world of what is often referred to as dark money —

[MUSIC PLAYING]

— the world of nonprofit advocacy groups whose funding sources are often very opaque or anonymous. And in digging into this, I eventually discovered yet another group called The Constitutional Defense Fund, which is, again, a type of group that seems to have come out of nowhere. It’s not clear who runs it. Its address is a UPS store in Virginia.

But looking at its tax filings, which are public, I was able to see that it received big infusions of money from somewhere in the lead up to the Supreme Court’s Bruen case and dispersed that money as payments to a number of interesting recipients. The law firm that had paid Dr. English for his Vermont survey work, a board member of the NRA, The Firearms Policy Coalition, and interestingly, a grant to Dr. English himself for $58,000.

Wow.

That was a very interesting revelation because this is a pro-gun group, The Constitutional Defense Fund, that lists one of its causes as Second Amendment defense. And here it was paying money to Dr. English right around the time that he was doing his national survey.

Now because he’s not talking to me, I can’t ask him anything about that. But I did go to Georgetown University to see if they had any knowledge of it. They said they didn’t. But they did make the point that, as a faculty member, he can do research projects on his own.

So, Mike, you’re finding all of these connections, some of which seem kind of indirect, maybe a little bit obfuscated, between Dr. English and some of these gun groups. But do we know if the money helped to actually fund Dr. English’s national survey?

It’s unclear whether it played a direct role in the survey. And it’s important to point out, of course, that the source of funding by itself doesn’t necessarily mean there’s anything wrong with the survey. But let’s face it, there’s a reason why you’d want to know who paid for it. I mean, whenever you do a survey like this, there are assumptions and choices that are made about the framing of questions, the order in which they’re asked, how the sample of respondents is selected, the methodology used to make sense of the findings, and even the smallest decisions one way or the other on those types of issues can skew the results.

Right. There’s a reason why researchers, academics typically disclose the source of their funding in papers or reports or other things that they put out.

Right. And there’s one other thing that we do know about the funding. And that is that among the payments that this pro-gun group had made was an $80,000 payment to a law firm that helped write and file an amicus brief in the Supreme Court’s Bruen case for Dr. English. And it’s important, because an amicus brief is what they call a friend of the court filing. And it’s, in this case, designed to support the legal arguments being made by the plaintiffs before the Supreme Court. And this was the first time that his national firearms survey appeared in a court proceeding.

Now, there are lots of amicus filings in Supreme Court cases. I don’t think anyone can say that an amicus brief by itself has ever turned the tide in a Supreme Court decision. But the scholarship and the legal arguments in these briefs are paid attention to and given weight. In the case of Dr. English, it did carry a lot of weight because it was cited in at least five briefs that were filed in that case.

And Dr. English and his research were invoked during oral arguments.

Justice Stephen Breyer, who was one of the court’s liberal justices, raised the concern that if by eliminating these restrictions, it’s going to lead to more violence on the streets.

The plaintiff’s attorney referred him to Dr. English’s brief as a counterpoint.

Wow.

And it also was cited by Justice Samuel Alito in his concurring opinion. So it’s inarguably an instance in which this particular amicus filing did get the attention of people involved in that case.

Why do you think that the court failed to give this study and Dr. English the kind of scrutiny that you did?

Well, my colleague on this story, Jodi Kantor, has looked into this as well. And there really is no mechanism in the Supreme Court to vet things like this. And there’s a couple of reasons for that. One is that there’s a presumption that by the time a case gets to the Supreme Court level, evidentiary issues have already been worked out somewhere in the lower courts.

But that’s not the case with amicus briefs. Amicus briefs could contain opinions and the information from almost anybody. And there really is no system in the high court to analyze that, to vet it, and figure out how legitimate it is. But after the Bruen ruling and after the study was cited by a Supreme Court justice, we do see a big increase in the number of times Dr. English’s research shows up in lower court cases. So I think that the attention that was given to his work in the Supreme Court case helped propel his findings into the litigation campaign that followed the Bruen case.

So this kind of seems like it’s bringing us full circle. This study that has these issues that you’ve uncovered is helping gun advocates overturn gun laws all over the country, not by working its way up through the court system and all these smaller cases, but by actually walking through the front door at the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, and getting the rubber stamp from one of the justices, even.

That’s right.

So I’m curious, Mike, at the end of the day, where does the responsibility lie for keeping a study like this out of the courts and potentially becoming integral to changing gun laws?

Well, I think in the end, the story of Dr. English and his survey is really the logical culmination of a decades long effort by the gun lobby to change our understanding of the Second Amendment in such a way that it allows for this kind of litigation to proceed, knocking down gun restrictions across the country.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Because of Bruen, courts are having to make these decisions based on things like historical precedents and statistical analysis. And since judges aren’t experts on these things, they turn to scholarship. And some of the scholarship, it turns out, has ties to pro-gun interests.

And so you have courts making their decisions based on information of uncertain provenance, if you will. And all of it is the product of this decades long campaign by gun advocacy groups. So you’re likely to see more and more of these kinds of academic papers and research and legal arguments being made, because that’s sort of the new territory of where we find ourselves.

So there might be more studies like this and more gun scholars like Dr. English in the future?

Most definitely.

Well, Mike, thank you so much.

Thank you.

We’ll be right back.

Here’s what else you need to know today. Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un signed a mutual assistance pact. The deal revives a Cold War era agreement that requires each country to defend the other against outside aggression. And it’s the strongest signal yet that the agreement among the world’s strongest nuclear powers to curb North Korea’s nuclear program has fizzled.

And —

The legendary Giants center fielder Willie Mays died on Tuesday at age 93.

Known as the Say Hey Kid, he was among the first generation of Black players to play in Major League Baseball in the 1950s. He was brilliant at every part of the game, at the plate, in the field, rounding the bases. Some even said he was the greatest baseball player of all time.

Today’s episode was produced by Will Reid, Nina Feldman, and Clare Toeniskoetter with help from Michael Simon Johnson. It was edited by Michael Benoist, contains original music by Marion Lozano, Elisheba Ittoop, Rowan Niemisto, and Dan Powell, and was engineered by Alyssa Moxley. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly.

That’s it for “The Daily.” I’m Rachel Abrams. We’ll see you tomorrow.