In a move straight out of the censorship playbook, anti-gun groups are now trying to sue gun and ammo makers for simply talking about guns online. That’s not an exaggeration.
In Lowy v. Daniel Defense, activists are suing major industry players like Daniel Defense, Magpul, and Vista Outdoor—not for breaking laws, but for sharing pro-2A posts on social media.
Their claim? Patriotic images and military-themed marketing “caused” a shooting.
Joseph Greenlee, Director of Litigation Counsel for NRA-ILA, isn’t buying it. Speaking with America’s 1st Freedom Editor-in-Chief Frank Miniter, Greenlee breaks down how this isn’t just a case about firearms—it’s a full-blown attack on First Amendment rights.
“This is really a free speech case,” Greenlee said. “All these manufacturers are doing is posting pictures of Americans enjoying their Second Amendment rights.”
Think moms and daughters in hunting blinds, flags draped next to rifles, or groups training in tactical gear. According to the plaintiffs, those images are enough to “inspire violence.”
The problem? There’s no proof the shooter even saw these posts.
Still, the plaintiffs want the courts to ignore the facts—and the law. Congress already passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) back in 2005 to stop this kind of abusive litigation.
PLCAA blocks lawsuits against gun companies for the criminal misuse of their products by third parties. But there’s a loophole—known as the “predicate exception”—that anti-gunners are desperately trying to exploit. If they can claim a gun maker broke a law in their marketing, they think they can drag them into court anyway.
But here’s the kicker: the social media posts cited in the lawsuit aren’t ads. They don’t promote violence. They don’t even link to products. Yet, anti-gunners want to use them to bankrupt lawful businesses.
This isn’t just hypothetical. In California, lawmakers already passed legislation banning any gun-related advertising that might be “attractive to minors.”
That could mean outlawing bright colors, youth shooting camp promotions, or even just posts showing young people enjoying safe, supervised shooting sports.
So what happens if this lawsuit succeeds?
- Say goodbye to seeing new product announcements online.
- Forget about social media posts promoting training courses or competitions.
- And watch gun makers get sued into oblivion for exercising basic First Amendment rights.
The good news: the case is on appeal, and the manufacturers already won at the district court level. The Supreme Court is also considering a similar challenge in Smith & Wesson v. Mexico, which could help shut down these kinds of legal assaults.
Until then, Greenlee says the NRA-ILA will keep fighting—not just in this case, but in any courtroom where the First and Second Amendments are under attack.
Because make no mistake: if anti-gunners can silence gun makers, they can silence the right to own them too.
*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! ***
Read the full article here