Sheriff is Back! NRA Stands for First & Second Amendment Against Specious Lawsuit

I’m your huckle bearer.

You know that scene in the Western movie when the good sheriff–whom everyone thought was dead–appears in the third act to save the day? “Yeah, that’s right,” he says, drawing his wheelgun, “I’m back.”

In this particular metaphor, the good townspeople have been overrun for years by a nasty gang of outlaws who insisted that the Constitution was whatever they said it was. They rode around on their high horses, smugly infringing on the townspeople’s First and Second Amendment rights whenever they pleased, confident that they had eliminated all the men in the white hats. All hope seemed lost.

And now the “movie” is sliding into its third act, and the Sheriff is back, guns a-blazing. He’s going to start with the latest outrage perpetrated against the townspeople … a lawsuit alleging that social-media posts caused a mass shooting. And here’s the WANTED poster that he’s sticking up all over town.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NRA Files Amicus Brief in Case Attempting to Punish Firearm Manufacturers for Pro-Second Amendment Social Media Posts

Yesterday, NRA filed an amicus brief supporting firearm manufacturers in a case where the plaintiffs allege that the manufacturers’ pro-Second Amendment social media posts caused a third party to commit a horrific public shooting.

The firearm manufacturers regularly post pro-Second Amendment content on social media. These posts often contain imagery of firearms, individuals in military gear, and tactical equipment, and express support for the right to keep and bear arms.

After an individual used various firearms—some of which were manufactured by the defendants in this case—in a crime, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit claiming that the manufacturers’ social media posts influenced the shooter to act.

NRA’s brief focuses on certain First Amendment aspects of the case. The plaintiffs claim, in essence, that the manufacturers’ social media posts are not protected by the First Amendment because they are either (1) commercial speech or (2) incitement to violence. NRA’s brief explains that the social media posts are not commercial speech because their primary purpose is to advocate for the Second Amendment, not to facilitate a commercial transaction. And either way, the plaintiffs’ attempt to censor the posts is viewpoint discrimination based on the pro-Second Amendment views expressed in their posts, which presumptively violates the First Amendment.

Moreover, the manufacturers’ posts did not incite the shooter to commit violence. There is nothing sinister about the militaristic imagery in the posts. Rather, there has always been a synergistic connection between military, law enforcement, and the right to keep and bear arms.

At its core, this is a case where the plaintiffs are trying to censor the manufacturers because they disagree with their message. But the manufacturers have a right to speak (or post) in support of the Second Amendment, and the plaintiffs cannot violate the First Amendment to stop them from doing so.

The case, Lowy v. Daniel Defense, is currently before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.