The SAF is trying to protect firearms manufacturers from being sued over their advertising. [Zac K.] The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is out there in the trenches every day, scrapping with the anti-firearm lobbyists in court. One of their latest battlegrounds is Daniel Defense v. Lowy in the U.S. Supreme Court, where the SAF says that firearms advertising should be free to use martial and tactical themes. Legal scraps @ TFB:Judge Shoots Down Virginia's Plan For Universal Background Checks New 72-Hour Waiting Law Takes Effect In Maine NSSF Vows Legal Challenge if Maryland Bans Striker-Fired Handguns New ATF "Engaged In The Business" Rule (Kinda) Blocked By Judge Fighting over marketingOver the past few years, marketing has been one of the flashpoints of legal battles in the firearms world. In 2022, Bushmaster’s militaristic advertising was one of the sticking points in the Sandy Hook lawsuits that saw Remington forced to pay $73M in a lawsuit. However, the SAF says that’s unfair, and in the Daniel Defense v. Lowy case, they say a manufacturer’s advertising shouldn’t be held responsible for a third party’s actions. Quoting from the SAF’s press release describing their legal intervention:“The plaintiffs in the case seek to hold lawful firearms manufacturers liable for a third party's crime on the theory that advertisements using military, patriotic, or law-enforcement themes promoted a ‘warrior mentality’ and appealed to ‘militaristic fantasies.’ The plaintiffs have never so much as proven the suspect in the crime even saw the ads in question, let alone that he was influenced by them to commit a heinous crime. The Fourth Circuit held that allegations the shooter was ‘exposed to and influenced by’ such ads satisfy Article III standing.” The SAF says Americans have bought firearms marketed with military ties for generations. [Zac K.] The SAF says that civilians have been buying firearms based on military themes for many years, and that makes sense due to the Second Amendment’s mention of militias, not to mention the prevalence of “combat-suitable” arms in that period, and civilian participation in home guard service, posse comitatus service and even the Civilian Marksmanship Program in the generations since. Many of America’s most popular rifles and pistols were used by the military as well as civilians, and were marketed on that basis."This is not a new kind of speech. It is how Americans have sold and described arms since the Founding," says Kostas Moros, the Foundation’s Director of Legal Research and Education. He cautions that "If commonplace military or law-enforcement themes in lawful advertising are enough for standing, every manufacturer becomes a defendant after a crime committed with a similar product."Foundation director Adam Kraut added that "Lawmakers will stop at nothing to throttle the Second Amendment, even if it means trying to prove marketing campaigns are the reason people commit crimes. We feel this case provides the perfect vehicle for the Court to make clear that historically ordinary speech about lawful arms does not make people break the law." If the SAF can’t protect firearms advertising, OEMs are opened up to more potential lawsuits over their adverts. [Zac K.] To that end, the SAF has filed an amicus brief with the NRA in Daniel Defense v. Lowy supporting the petitioner’s request for review of a Fourth Circuit decision. If the court rules in the SAF’s favor, it might go a long way towards ensuring firearms manufacturers are legally protected—and if the ruling goes the other way, the reverse might be true.