Sacramento Journalist Calls for “Immediate Ban” on U.S. Gun Production — and a “Gun-Free Society”

Gun-control advocates have spent decades carefully managing their public messaging. The Brady Campaign — originally named Handgun Control Inc. — changed its name after polling showed that “handgun control” as an explicit goal didn’t poll well with Americans. The organizational focus on “responsible gun ownership” replaced what had been a more direct argument about restricting handguns.

The careful messaging discipline occasionally breaks down. When it does, the unfiltered position behind the polished framing is worth paying attention to.

Sacramento-based journalist Seth Sandronsky has just provided one of those moments. In a May 22 op-ed at CounterPunch headlined “Ban U.S. Gun Production Now!”, Sandronsky argues that conventional gun control laws are insufficient and the actual solution is ending domestic firearm manufacturing entirely.

The argument

“Now is the time to call for an immediate ban on the production of guns stateside,” Sandronsky wrote. “Decisive action to prevent the chronic problem of firearm deaths in the U.S. is long overdue. How? The answer seems plain as day: ending the for-profit production of guns.”

The framework Sandronsky proposes treats firearms as a manufacturing problem rather than a constitutional rights question. He identifies the gun industry’s 383,000 employees — citing 2025 Firearm Industry Trade Association data — as a “working class” labor force that has been “centrally involved” in firearm deaths as both perpetrators and victims, and proposes federal taxpayer compensation as the mechanism for displacing them.

“Taxpayers can compensate the 383,000 employees in the firearm industry, earning $89,000 (salaries and benefits) annually, for a total payout of $34 billion,” Sandronsky wrote.

The math is straightforward: $34 billion in one-time taxpayer compensation to eliminate the domestic firearm manufacturing workforce. What Sandronsky doesn’t explain is how this addresses the 400+ million firearms already in American civilian hands, which would remain in circulation regardless of whether domestic production continues.

The “gun-free society”

“Controlling guns post-production is assuming what requires explaining,” he wrote. “Class control and power over production is where the focus belongs. Politically, the working class needs a party that represents its interests, a gun-free society that benefits Americans on the left, center and right.”

This is the position gun-control advocacy organizations have publicly moved away from for decades. Brady’s rebrand from Handgun Control Inc. acknowledged that “gun-free society” framing doesn’t poll well. Everytown, Giffords, Brady, and other major gun-control organizations all carefully avoid explicit calls for civilian disarmament in their public messaging — focusing instead on “common-sense gun safety,” “responsible gun ownership,” and specific categorical restrictions (assault weapons, magazine capacities, sensitive places).

Sandronsky’s piece argues that the careful framing is itself the problem. The actual goal, in his framing, should be a “gun-free society” — and the path there runs through manufacturing rather than through the politically difficult work of regulating existing firearms.

What the proposal doesn’t address

A serious manufacturing-ban proposal would need to address several questions Sandronsky’s piece doesn’t engage:

The Second Amendment. Sandronsky’s article doesn’t mention the Second Amendment once. A federal ban on firearm manufacturing would face immediate constitutional challenge under both the Second Amendment and the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court’s Heller (2008) and Bruen (2022) decisions establish that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to firearms in common civilian use — a category that necessarily presupposes the existence of firearms to own. A ban on the production of those firearms would be analyzed under the same historical-tradition framework that has invalidated multiple state-level firearms restrictions since 2022.

The existing supply. There are approximately 400 million firearms already in civilian ownership in the United States, according to industry and federal estimates. A production ban would not remove these firearms from circulation. It would create a market in which existing firearms appreciate dramatically while new sales — including replacements for worn firearms, defensive purchases, and inheritance transfers — become impossible. The “gun-free society” outcome would require not just halting production but somehow removing existing firearms from civilian possession.

Imports. The Sandronsky proposal targets domestic production specifically. American firearms market demand has historically been supplied by both domestic manufacturers and imports from Austria (Glock, Steyr), Germany (Sig Sauer, H&K, Walther), Italy (Beretta, Benelli), Croatia (Springfield Armory imports), the Czech Republic (CZ), Turkey, and elsewhere. A domestic production ban without corresponding import restrictions would shift manufacturing offshore rather than eliminate the supply.

Constitutional manufacturing protection. Federal courts have generally been skeptical of regulations that target firearms manufacturing as a means of restricting firearm ownership. The argument that manufacturing restrictions are functionally equivalent to ownership restrictions has appeared in multiple Second Amendment cases since Heller.

The problem

The Brady Campaign rebrand from Handgun Control Inc. happened in 2001. In the 24 years since, the major gun-control organizations have consistently maintained that their goal is regulation rather than elimination. Brady, Everytown, and Giffords all explicitly state in their organizational materials that they support the Second Amendment and do not seek civilian disarmament.

Sandronsky’s piece argues, in effect, that this messaging discipline is dishonest and the actual goal should be openly acknowledged. The “gun-free society” framing he uses is the position gun-control organizations spent decades distancing themselves from precisely because Americans don’t support it.

Whether Sandronsky speaks for anyone beyond himself is a separate question. CounterPunch is a left-wing publication that publishes a range of contributors and doesn’t represent any organized advocacy group. The op-ed is one journalist’s argument, not an organizational policy statement.

But the existence of the argument — and the explicit “gun-free society” framing — is worth noting for what it reveals about positions that exist beneath the surface of mainstream gun-control messaging. Sandronsky is making explicit what most gun-control organizations work hard to keep implicit.

What this signals

For gun-rights advocates, the Sandronsky piece is useful primarily as documentation. The argument that “gun control” is a euphemism for “civilian disarmament” has been a standard gun-rights talking point for decades — usually dismissed by gun-control advocates as paranoid or strawmanning. Sandronsky’s op-ed provides a clean primary source: a published argument, in his own words, that the goal is a “gun-free society” achieved by eliminating domestic firearm production.

That doesn’t mean every gun-control advocate shares this position. It does mean the position exists, in print, with a byline, in a publication willing to print it. When the next gun-control proposal arrives framed as “common-sense” regulation that “respects” the Second Amendment, the Sandronsky piece is a useful reference point for what the more candid version of the same political coalition actually wants.