Explore The NRA Universe Of Websites

APPEARS IN News

California Targets First and Second Amendments with Advertising Ban

Monday, July 11, 2022

California Targets First and Second Amendments with Advertising Ban

Anti-gun politicians hate civilian gun ownership so much, theyre willing to do away with the First Amendment just to get at the Second. Such is the case with New Yorks new speech-based restrictions on the Right-to-Carry. Just as troubling is Californias AB2571, which purports to ban all firearms-related advertising that a minor (those under the age of 18) might find attractive.

Signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) on June 30, AB2571 provides,

A firearm industry member shall not advertise, market, or arrange for placement of an advertising or marketing communication concerning any firearm-related product in a manner that… reasonably appears to be attractive to minors.

Note that the advertisement need not be aimed at minors. The item only needs to appear to be attractive to minors” in order to trigger the ban.

The legislative text goes on to list some examples of what would constitute prohibited marketing. However, the statute makes clear that the prohibited advertising is not limited to” these examples. This means that there is no way to determine what a given California court might find as appear[ing] to be attractive to minors,” and thus banned.

Of course, a great deal of advertising is attractive to both adults and minors. A young shooter or hunter might value the same characteristics in a firearm-related product (accuracy, reliability, ease of use) that would attract an adult buyer. Therefore, the legislation invites endless litigation over the contours of the prohibition.

According to the statute, an advertisement is explicitly prohibited when it:

Offers firearm-related products in sizes, colors, or designs that are specifically designed to be used by, or appeal to, minors.

Uses images or depictions of minors in advertising and marketing materials to depict the use of firearm-related products.

Note that this prohibition would not only eliminate advertisements supposedly targeted at minors, but also encompasses advertisements informing parents about lawful products they might purchase to use with their children. This would include a ban on advertisements for youth versions and sizes of common sporting rifles, shotguns, and stocks and could be read to include advertisements involving size-adjustable stocks and other accessories.

Moreover, the law bans any depiction of a minor in firearm-related marketing materials - no matter the context. As a love for the shooting and outdoor sports is often passed down generation to generation, wholesome family-centric shooting and hunting imagery has long been a staple of firearms advertising. Such artistic representations of the shooting sports are prohibited under this legislation.

A firearm industry member” that disobeys Californias speech restrictions is subject to a penalty of up to $25,000 per violation. The legislation makes clear that Each copy or republication of marketing or advertising prohibited by this section shall be deemed a separate violation.” The bill also invites attorneys to inundate the firearm industry with lawsuits by creating a private right of action against offenders and offering those who prevail attorneys fees.

Given Californias political posture in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Courts landmark NYSRPA v. Bruen decision and the expansive scope of AB2571s ill-defined speech restrictions, its likely the laws draftersintent has no relation to their purported goal of protecting children. Rather, the legislation is written in a manner so broad as to attempt to eliminate firearm-related advertising in the Golden State and, in turn, pro-Second Amendment publications that rely on firearm advertising for revenue. The bill supportersover-arching goal is to stifle their opponentspolitical speech.

However, even if AB2571s draftersmotives are taken at face value, the legislation violates the First Amendment because it is overbroad, is a content-based restriction on speech, and, even if analyzed as covering purely commercial speech, fails to comport with the Supreme Courts existing commercial speech framework. In addition to violating the First Amendment, the law likely violates the equal protection clause. While the law would prevent members of the firearm industry from engaging in certain speech, it would not prohibit others from engaging in the same conduct.

Under the Supreme Courts test laid out in the Bruen case, the law also violates the Second Amendment. Justice Thomasmajority opinion makes clear that the burden is on the state to defend any restriction on the right to arms by showing that the regulation is of a type or analogous to a restriction that has historically existed on the right since the founding. Such broad bans on advertising of Second Amendment-protected services and products clearly have no historical analogue.

There are already multiple challenges to AB2571 under way. Please check back to www.nraila.org for more updates on this law and any litigation challenging it.

TRENDING NOW
Did Biden Call Most American Gun Owners Sick?

News  

Monday, December 5, 2022

Did Biden Call Most American Gun Owners Sick?

There are few things in life that one can truly count on. Of course, there’s the old saying about death and taxes, and we know the sun will rise in the East and set in ...

Oregon Agrees That Delaying Measure 114’s Permit-to-Purchase Requirement Is Necessary After Challenged in NRA-ILA Backed Lawsuit

News  

Monday, December 5, 2022

Oregon Agrees That Delaying Measure 114’s Permit-to-Purchase Requirement Is Necessary After Challenged in NRA-ILA Backed Lawsuit

Last week, an NRA-ILA backed lawsuit was filed challenging Oregon Measure 114, which created a mislabeled permit-to-purchase a firearm and banned the possession of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The lawsuit also ...

Trudeau’s Real Agenda: Ban Legal Firearm Ownership Altogether

News  

Monday, December 5, 2022

Trudeau’s Real Agenda: Ban Legal Firearm Ownership Altogether

How appropriate is it that “gaslighting” (“the act or practice of grossly misleading someone especially for one’s own advantage”) is Merriam Webster’s word of the year for 2022.

Recent ATF Action Shows Need for Suppressor Reform

News  

Monday, March 14, 2022

Recent ATF Action Shows Need for Suppressor Reform

As we reported last week, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) denied approximately 850 Form 1 applications for prospective makers of suppressors on February 28. These denials were apparently made due to ...

Public Lands Lawsuit Settled—All Lands Remain Open to Hunting

Thursday, December 1, 2022

Public Lands Lawsuit Settled—All Lands Remain Open to Hunting

In 2020, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expanded hunting and fishing opportunities on more than 2.3 million acres of land. That decision was challenged in federal court, and the NRA, Safari Club International, Sportsmen’s ...

NRA-ILA Backed Lawsuit Filed Challenging Oregon Measure 114

Thursday, December 1, 2022

NRA-ILA Backed Lawsuit Filed Challenging Oregon Measure 114

Today an NRA-backed lawsuit was filed challenging Ballot Measure 114, which voters passed by a slim margin last month. Measure 114 creates a falsely labeled “permit to purchase” a firearm requirement and bans standard capacity magazines, which it ...

On Crime, We Know What Works

News  

Monday, December 5, 2022

On Crime, We Know What Works

In recent years, much of elite opinion has been dedicated to obfuscating the causes and solutions to the increase in violent crime. At its least harmful, this messaging effort has focused on the admittedly complicated ...

NY AG James Sends Threatening Letter to Ammunition Sellers

News  

Monday, November 21, 2022

NY AG James Sends Threatening Letter to Ammunition Sellers

In a move that surprised absolutely nobody, anti-gun New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) announced last week that she would expand her assault on the Second Amendment by targeting ammunition sellers. AG James claimed, ...

Ohio: Emergency Powers Bill Advances to House Floor

Thursday, December 1, 2022

Ohio: Emergency Powers Bill Advances to House Floor

Today, the House Government Oversight committee voted 8-5 to pass Senate Bill 185, to guarantee that Second Amendment rights remain protected during emergencies. It will now go to the House floor for further consideration.

Colorado: Broomfield City Moves to Adopt Gun Control Package to Diminish Second Amendment Rights!

Thursday, December 1, 2022

Colorado: Broomfield City Moves to Adopt Gun Control Package to Diminish Second Amendment Rights!

Earlier this week, Broomfield City Council advanced a gun control package to impose on law-abiding citizens.  The second reading will be held in January.  In truth, none of the slew of regulations will stop criminals ...

MORE TRENDING +
LESS TRENDING -

More Like This From Around The NRA

NRA ILA

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.