Ravenwood - 08/11/03 06:00 AM
Not content with repealing the Second Amendment, gun grabbers are now lashing out at the First Amendment, in what they call a "newspaper loophole". CNS News reports that anti-gun ownership groups are now pressuring newspapers to deny classified advertisements to gun owners.
"The issue is not guns, but the way guns are sold," claimed John Johnson, coordinator of the so-called National Campaign to Close the Newspaper Loophole, in a press release Wednesday. "In an age of increasing concern for public safety, we find it difficult to defend a newspaper's part in the private sale of firearms by unlicensed sellers without a criminal background check of the would-be buyer."What a shame that pesky First Amendment some times gets in the way of stifling freedom. Opponents of this foolish cause point out that nobody is concerned about advertisements of used cars, tools, and machinery; any of which could be used to commit a crime. Personally, I'm not going to lose too much sleep just yet about these GFWs.
Pressuring newspapers to drop gun ads has to be the biggest waste of time I've ever heard of. A law banning classified advertisements of guns would directly violate the First Amendment, so the most these freedom grabbers can really do is to use their freedom of choice to pressure newspapers to voluntarily refuse business from gun sellers. While liberal rags like the Chicago Tribune have heeded the call, which is their right, others will not. Specifically, "Trading Post" style newspapers that specialize in classified advertising, as well as internet advertising sites, will not only ignore the whines from these GFWs*, but they will thrive from the increased business that less competition will provide. The end result is that private gun owners will still have plenty of open channels to use to advertise their firearms, and this anti-freedom group will have wasted their time and money on a futile quest to end classified advertising of firearms.
Of course the free market responds to this. The two Tucson newspapers stopped carrying firearms ads from individuals some time back, so someone set up the UsedGunsTucson website where you can post what you've got for sale. And he doesn't charge for the ads.
Plus, of course, there are a lot of other national sites. But I would think that if one person in each affected city set up a site like this, the fact that the newspapers won't carry the ads would have very little effect on private sales.
Posted by: Kevin Baker at August 11, 2003 10:03 AMThe National Campaign is not attempting to infringe on 1st Amendment rights, however Newspapers are privately owned entities and have the right and responsibility to their community to decide, for themselves, if implementing such a policy as "closing the loophole" is necessary for the community. Some newspapers just need this situation to be brought to their attention, thus the reason for the National Campaign.
Posted by: Kelly at April 5, 2004 5:07 PMKelly,
What situation is that? All newspapers have one mission and one mission only; to make money. Some of that money comes from classified ads. I agree that newspapers should decide for themselves what ads they want to carry, but the decision should be purely financial and in the best interest of the stockholders/owners.
For instance a newspaper may decide not to allow advertising for sex toys, guns, cars, or even peanut butter. It's really up to them. Whatever they decide though, they risk alienating people the exclude, or alienating their customers by including so-called "controversial" ads.
But for the gun grabbers to call it a loophole is a blantant attempt to take away First Amendment rights. "Loophole" stands for a loophole in the law. A desire to "close the newspaper loophole" implies wanting to prevent newspapers from publishing certain classified advertising, and that is wrong.
So far they seem to just be calling for a boycott, which is their right to do so. But given their past tactics, it's only a matter of time before they start pressuring lawmakers to rein in those First Amendment rights.
Posted by: Ravenwood at April 5, 2004 5:35 PM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
