NRA, SAF Urge SCOTUS to Take Up Daniel Defense Case

One of the dumbest things I’ve seen over the years is a propensity for some people to manufacture ways the gun industry is at fault for things no one in the gun industry had anything to do with. It’s gone on for decades at this point, all without anyone showing a single law broken. The latest is the attempt to blame the firearms industry for its advertising.

The “idea,” such as it is, is that gun companies’ advertising is basically a Bat Signal to disturbed people and makes guns attractive to would-be mass murderers.

Following the settlement between Remington — in actuality, it was their insurance company, which is important — and the Sandy Hook parents, this has been the path forward for anti-gunners.

But the folks at Daniel Defense don’t seem interested in rolling over like an insurance company that’s only worried about the business side and not matters of right and wrong.

Their lawsuit is pending before the Supreme Court. The NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation filed an amicus brief, all but begging the Court to take up the case.

The plaintiffs seek to hold the manufacturers responsible for a shooting allegedly influenced by that advertising—even though the plaintiffs do not allege that the shooter saw the particular posts they challenge. The district court dismissed the claims, but the Fourth Circuit reversed in relevant part, holding that Article III standing was satisfied by allegations that the shooter was “exposed to and influenced by” the advertising.

Our brief argues that this theory mistakes ordinary firearms advertising for the cause of someone else’s crime. As the brief shows, from colonial newspaper notices through nineteenth- and twentieth-century catalogs, firearms have long been advertised for both civilian and military use. Many firearms throughout American history have been designed and sold for both purposes. The line this lawsuit treats as decisive—military arms versus civilian arms—does not exist in the historical record.

And to me, even if you want to blame advertising, there needs to be evidence that the individual in question actually saw the advertisements. The reality is that it’s not like Daniel Defense is advertising during the middle of the Super Bowl. The gun industry doesn’t really run commercials on most channels, either network or cable, with the exception of outdoor channels. 

For the most part, you have to go looking for advertisements. You need to follow these companies on social media. You have to buy firearm-related magazines. You have to be part of the culture to some degree to ever see them.

So yeah, you should at least have to prove the individual saw the ads.

Even then, though, so what? Citizens United basically said that corporations have rights, too. That should extend to free speech, which means that as long as Daniel Defense isn’t outright telling people to go and kill folks, which they aren’t, then they’re in the clear.

The Supreme Court needs to take up this case because these lawsuits aren’t just happening; they’re being codified into state laws to serve as an end around the PLCAA. That’s the same law that the Court unanimously upheld to a degree in Mexico’s lawsuit against the firearm industry.

I hope the Court listens and puts a stop to this crap.

Editor’s Note: The radical Left will stop at nothing to enact their extreme gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.

Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun-grabbing schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.