Is this story a parody, or is it for real?
Gun control activists nationwide are pressuring newspapers to stop accepting legal classified advertising of firearms for sale by private citizens. Advocates of gun owners' rights said Thursday that anti-gun forces apparently aren't content with ignoring the Second Amendment and now want to ignore the First Amendment as well.How is doing something that's perfectly legal a "loophole"?"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."
The campaign acknowledges that it is completely legal for private citizens to sell guns to other private citizens but wants to use privately owned newspapers to inhibit such sales.
"We recognize that classified ads for guns are perfectly legal under federal and [your State] state law," the campaign writes in a sample letter for activists to send to newspaper publishers. "But just because something is legal doesn't mean that it is good policy."
Sure, the National Campaign to Close the Newspaper Loophole is legally allowed to advocate the restriction of my 1st Amendment rights, but is it good policy? I can think of a few other holes that need to be closed.
The National Campaign to Close the Newspaper Loophole has *nothing* to do with your First Amendment rights. The First Amendment states only what Congress may not do -- it has no relevance to the actions of private businesses like newspapers.
Whether closing this loophole is a good idea or not is an entirely separate debate, but it's got nothing to do with the First Amendment.
Sure it does. The 1st Amendment protects (among other things) my right to free speech by prohibiting Congress from abridging it. The right protected is that of "free speech", even though the amendment itself only restricts Congress (and, in conjunction with the 14th, the various States as well).
So, "free speech" is a "1st Amendment" right, in that it is dealt with in the 1st Amendment. A private institution can certainly seek to restrict the rights that the Constitution guarantees, even though such a restriction would not be a violation of the Constitution.
"So, "free speech" is a "1st Amendment" right, in that it is dealt with in the 1st Amendment."
No. The 1st Amendment right in question is the right to "speech without interference from the government." That is not the same thing as "free speech" the way you're using it. As the NCCNL is not the government, nor is it lobbying the government to restrict your speech, the 1st Amendment is not relevant.
I guess I'm taking a more of a libertarian view than you are. We have the right to speak freely, period. The 1st Amendment protects us from government interference with that right. Other people may still interfere without violating the 1st Amendment.
"Other people may still interfere without violating the 1st Amendment."
Which contradicts what you originally said -- that the NCCNL is trying to violate your First Amendment rights. In which case I wonder what the "libertarian" comment has to do with it.