The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) recently called on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate whether the Biden Administration’s Office of Gun Violence Prevention worked with anti-Second Amendment groups to pressure the FTC into cracking down on firearm advertising. As Market Institute President Charles Sauer explains in RealClearMarkets, the real issue isn’t “deceptive” advertising — it’s government overreach.
“The senators’ letter accused the gun industry of marketing to children because their ads referenced popular ‘first person shooter video games’ like Call of Duty. The problem with this claim is that the majority of gamers are over 18—making it perfectly legal for the firearms industry to market their products to them.”
The attack on advertising goes further. Critics argue that it is misleading for companies to highlight the self-defense benefits of firearms. But the facts say otherwise: guns are used defensively between 60,000 and 2.5 million times per year.
“Once again, the senators’ claims do not fit the facts… It is not misleading to say that firearms can be a useful tool for self-defense.”
Beyond the factual debate lies the constitutional one. Even under the lower standard of review for commercial speech, banning or restricting firearm ads would not survive a court challenge.
“As weak as the arguments for restricting firearms advertising are, the main argument against such restrictions is that they violate the First Amendment.”
Sauer warns that the FTC could try to restrict firearm ads indirectly, by conditioning mergers and acquisitions of media companies on agreements not to run ads for “dangerous” products. This is a dangerous precedent that threatens both the First and Second Amendments.
The lesson is clear: the fight over gun advertising is really a fight over free speech. As Eric Pratt of Gun Owners of America puts it:
“The Second Amendment isn’t a bargaining chip, it’s the cornerstone of every American’s freedom.”
