Second Amendment

San Francisco's Gun Picture Ban


The New York Times reports that the San Francisco Metropolitan Transportation Agency (SFMTA) is rethinking its rule against ads that "appear to promote the use of firearms." Columbia Pictures had to produce special San Francisco editions of posters advertising the cop comedy The Other Guys, replacing guns held by stars Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg with "more innocuous pepper spray canisters, police badges and bare hands." Yet posters advertising an upcoming gun rights conference sponsored by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF)  went up unaltered.

The posters show a woman holding a shotgun as she peers through a curtain in her home. The headline reads: "A violent criminal is breaking through your front door. Can you afford to be UNARMED?" SAF founder Alan Gottlieb, who said he printed the posters after reading about the SFMTA's gun-phobic censorship of movie ads, told the Times, "We were prepared to go to court and sue if they did not put them up." But so far that hasn't been necessary. "At this point we're not taking any action to remove the ads," SFMTA spokesman Paul Rose said. "We are currently reviewing our advertising policy in light of the recent Supreme Court decision, which may have altered the legal landscape regarding firearm advertising."

Rose was referring to McDonald v. Chicago, in which the Court said the Second Amendment protects an individual right to arms that states and cities are obligated to respect. But it seems like the pertinent amendment would be the First. A ban on ads that "appear to promote the use of firearms" is not only content-based; it discriminates against a particular viewpoint, which is unconstitutional in a "designated public forum" such as the SFMTA's advertising spaces. The SFMTA's policy is akin to banning ads from the National Right to Life Committee while allowing ads from the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League. In that case, the relevant rulings would be First Amendment cases dealing with speech in designated public forums, not Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

I discuss the First Amendment's application to transit ads here and here.

NEXT: News You Can Use: Organic Doesn't Mean "Grown Without Pesticides"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It isn’t a violent criminal breaking through her front door, it’s a LEO serving a warrant to search her house for racist, teabagging, fascist, tax evading, anti-Obama, transfat promoting, marijuana smoking, jury nullification literature. As long as she keeps her viscious dog locked up in the kitchen, she’s got nothing to worry about from her government servants.

    1. Is it a vicious dog or a viscous dog?

      1. At least a viscous dog won’t get blood all over the floor.

    2. If she’s done nothing wrong, she has nothing to fear from the SWATzis.

      Her little dog, on the other hand…

  2. So many young kids were unsure about embarking on a school shooting, then they saw the Will Ferrell ad, and said “Hell yeah, Joey’s had this coming!”

  3. Liberal thought processes strike again.

  4. That’s liberalism for ya.

  5. Remove guns from pictures of The Other Guys ads? Do you think liberals realize how big pussies they’ve become?

    1. Am I the only one who remembers the re-release of “E.T.”, in which Spielberg digitally replaced the government agents’ guns with walkie-talkies?

      1. The South Park episode on that was epic

    2. First, these people can not legitimately be called “liberal” in any meaningful sense of the word. The original liberals – the classical type ones – need to re-appropriate the term. How liberal came to be synonymous with authoritarian collectivism is beyond me. Also, San Fran is apparently peopled with complete imbeciles and asshats. Jesus I hate these people.

  6. I’m thinking that that petite Asian should go with something she can actually lift and fire without hurting herself. Any suggestions, gun aficionados?

    1. Do you seriously think the recoil from a shotgun is going to hurt anyone?

      1. Depends on what kind of shotgun and what kind of load it’s got in the mags.

        Many moons ago, I saw a petite young lady literally get knocked on her ass trying by firing a 12-gauge loaded with with high-brass magnum loads shooting 00 buck.

        A better choice for home defense is a youth gun sized 20-gauge, loaded with #1 buck. No need for magnum loads and at close-quarter distances, you don’t really need a 12-gauge either.

        1. Was it a pistol gripped shotgun? I’ve seen idiots fuck themselves up with those, but I’ve never seen it with one with a full stock.

          1. First shotgun I shot I was 10. It was a 12 gauge w/ 3 1/2″ magnum shells (not sure type, as I was pretty young).

            The recoil put me on my ass, I dropped the gun straight to the ground, but atleast I killed the dove.

      2. Bzzzt! Answering a question with a question is not allowed.

        1. Fuck you and fuck what you think is allowed. How’s that for an answer, fuckface?

          1. Bzzzt! Still not allowed. See BSR’s response. That’s how civilized people communicate.

      3. I dont think it would hurt her but it could easily cause a flinch and a miss (yes its quite possible to miss at close range with a shotgun, before the pattern opens up). If it can’t be fired rapidly due to recoil, what if there is more than one attacker?

    2. I love gun threads!

      She needs something like an AR carbine in 223 or a .30 M1 carbine. Good power and virtually no recoil. Easy to shoot well. Should be backed up with a good 9mm pistol that fits her hand (Kahr?)

      1. If I lived across the street from the lady I’d prefer she stick with the shotgun.

        1. This. While I don’t begrudge the young lady plinking with an AR, I’d prefer she employ something for home defense that’s not going to massively overpenetrate her apartment drywall and kill my Aunt Mabel next door, or across the street.

          1. I agree penetration is a concern which is why I’d pick a .223. Drywall and barrier tests have shown that .223 rounds, especially hollow and soft point, penetrate less than many pistol rounds. In fact the .223 is often criticized for its limited barrier penetration.

    3. You’d be amazed what modern engineering can achieve. The recoil/firepower ratio has gone down dramatically in the last few years.

    4. I would suggest the traditional weapon used by Japanese women for home defense, the naginata or a similar sword-on-a-stick weapon. Practice cleanly and quickly slicing things in the hallway first.

    5. I’m thinking that that petite Asian should go with something she can actually lift and fire without hurting herself. Any suggestions, gun aficionados?

      Get her into the National 4-H Shooting Sports program. She can learn how to manage a 12-guage from all the teenage girls competing in skeet, trap, and sporting clays.

  7. A man’s got to know his limitations.

    1. Also: You’re shit out of luck!

  8. When will they ban Will Ferrell movies?

    That day cannot come soon enough.

  9. But it seems like the pertinent amendment would be the First.


    1. 1st amendment, 2nd amendment, whatever. They’re both useless unless approved by the collective for use in a highly regulated environment. And that’s only the first; the second is only for those rat bagging tea fuckers waiting for their marching orders from Rush Limbaugh.

  10. My suggestion is that you broaden your acquaintance of petite Asian women. I see no reason to doubt that she can’t manage a 12 gauge pump just fine. Probably one-handed, if my personal experience is any guide.

    1. You’re an Asian female? Wouldn’t have guessed.

    2. If you are petite Asian female, cornholio would like to speak further with you.

      1. He’s Will Smith.

  11. Viewpoint discrimination, straight up.

  12. Can’t believe nobody mentioned that Malcolm X shot, yet.

    1. I noticed it immediately. They exchanged the scary militant Black man with M1 Carbine/hi-cap mag for a non-threatening Asian chick holding a sporting weapon.

    2. Mr. X ought not have his booger hook on the bang switch, unless he wants a .30 cal skylight.

      1. That photo was taken long before the “Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot” rule was invented. It’s historically accurate.

  13. The picture I’d like to see would be one of the faces of SF libs when they see that ad. Bwuhahahahaha.

  14. Since we spend a lot of time knocking the MSM, one note of sympathy: The only reason Columbia got sheared and 2AF didn’t was that a studio has deep pockets for municipal meddlers to pick.

    1. Not meaning to nitpick here, Tim, but Columbia did not get “sheared.” They actually altered their own posters so they would comply with this absurd bullshit. They are complicit in this attack on 1st Amendment rights because they made a conscious decision that placed their profits from a crappy movie over their principles (or what I would have assumed their principles to be until this episode) regarding free speech.

      I wonder how Columbia would feel if SF said their movie could not be shown because it had violent images. Do you think they would have accepted that level of censorship? I doubt it, because it would have cut into their bottom line. Their posters can be altered easily and cheaply, though, to comply with the standard, therefore, it is easier and more economically sensible for them to sacrifice their freedom for the pursuit of the almighty dollar.

      As far as SF going after them instead of 2AF, I believe it is because they know hollyweird studios tend to fall in with the progressive group-think mentality they so love to impose on their citizens while 2AF would have taken them to court and gotten the restriction overturned on any number of grounds. They probably figure it’s easier to appease the enemy who could destroy you in the courts than it is to appease the “friendly” who is more concerned with profit than principle.

  15. But banning speech based on its viewpoint is completely acceptable in the US, so long as the viewpoint is that you ought to be buying something for the speaker, or that you might want to smoke a cigarette or drink alcohol or engage in other ungood behavior.

  16. Terrible ad. I did not see the shot gun until the article described it.

    “Shotgun? oh yeah I guess she doe have a shotgun.”

    It just looked like an Asian woman looking out a window.

    1. wow maybe i am loosing it.

      After rereading it i discovered it said “gun rights policy conference”

      I thought it said “gay rights policy conference”

      1. Could have been. Armed queers are save queers.

        1. If anyone should be armed it should be those who have their civil liberties abused the most. The odd thing is those people being generally liberal (in the US political sense) tend to want to disarm everyone including themselves.

          1. And of course fire arms are the great equalizer. Take away everyone’s guns and the weak and the old don’t have a chance. If I am some 150 lb effeminate gay guy, a gun makes me equal to anyone. Disarming everyone just ensures I am a victim.

            1. God, or the spaghetti monster, made man and John, Sam, Horace, and Daniel made men equals.

              1. I like that one.

              2. I thought it was, “Samuel Colt made all men equal, and the infrared sniperscope made them all the same color.”

            2. +1. I remember seeing a sign at one of those “Million Mom marches” which said “imagine a world without guns.” I thought it was one of the stupidest things I have ever heard because you don’t have to imagine anything. Just look at recorded history. Before the advent of the reliable repeating firearm (e.g. the colt revolver and the winchester rifle), any woman was at the mercy of any man, and any individual was at the mercy of the mob.

  17. Guns are scary. Mmmmmkay?

  18. Ever notice how Hollywood Liberals make movies glorifying gun violence,then sign on to gun banning groups. Money talks. Typical Hollywood producer would sell his mother’s soiled underware to perverts if the price was right.

    1. but notice that hollywood liberals (iow hollywood) and i include teevee, etc. only picture people with guns in certain circumstances

      the most common gun owners in the US are law abiding people, and those with CCW’s in states that allow them

      they are generally not portrayed… at all… even the show frasier, where his dad was a retired SPD cop NEVER to my recollection showed his dad strapping on a handgun before he left the house

      the average everyday CCW’er doesn’t exist in hollywood

      people who carry guns are either

      1) criminals
      2) cops
      3) PI’s (magnum, excluded)
      4) super secret govt. agents
      5) normal people placed in bad circumstances (like being chased by any of the above

      you would never see just an average guy carrying a concealed (or open carry) weapon on a sitcom, movie, etc.

      iirc, the brady bunch was the first teevee show to picture the husband and wife in the same bed.

      all in the family revolutionized by letting you hear a toilet flush (and married with children took this to a whole other level)

      but the average joe carrying a firearm lawfully is a non-existent person according to hollywood

      1. That’s because entertainment by nature is supposed to be entertaining. Adding someone with a weapon to the story and that person not using the weapon is like taking a hammer to build a house and driving nails with your penis. (ten inch nails) Not a whole lot of gotcha or surprise in there.

        1. Not really. All sorts of accepted stuff is done in drama, sitcom, and movie theatres that isn’t in and of itself entertaining.

          We see people do “routine” stuff like brushing their teeth, shaving, drinking morning coffee,etc. because those are things that real people do.

          We don’t see people specifically do ONE routine thing, which is to carry a weapon concealed as mentioned above.

          Why? Because the leftists in the media DO NOT think it is normal or something to be represented (much like the guns in this case with advertisements).

          It is INaccurate for somebody like Frasier’s dad NOT to carry. But he is never shown carrying.

          Just the other day, I responded to a case where a person used his (lawful) weapon to detain a burglar before our arrival. That stuff happens ALL THE TIME. But not in teevee land.

          And out of ALL the characters, we don’t see any (maybe there is one I am not aware of).

          Millions of people carry. It is a specific strategy to pretend they don’t exist.

          1. I seem to recall many an episode of Bonanza where the Cartwright clan were packing iron.

            I suppose they could fit in your #5 category, but they weren’t necessarily always in that category.

  19. accept credit card and paypal

    Good news: this website we has been updated and add products and many things they abandoned their increases are welcome to visit our website. You can try oh, will make you satisfied

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.