Silicon Valley Targets A Gun Manufacturer

Silicon Valley Targets A Gun Manufacturer

Ohio/Social Media – -( If loyal Ammoland readers want to know why NYSRPA v. Bruen is not going to be a silver bullet to end the battle for our rights, they just need to look at Instagram’s actions towards an Ohio-based firearms manufacturer.

Hi-Point Firearms doesn’t have the name recognition of Springfield Armory, Glock, Colt, or Smith and Wesson. In fact, it is, in some ways, the flip side of SIG-Sauer, Beretta, or Heckler and Koch. It makes affordable semi-automatic carbines and pistols. It follows federal, state, and local laws.

So, when Instagram goes after a post that is five years old, one has to understand that Silicon Valley censorship is taking a worrisome turn. It was always going to be with us, even if we secured victories that prevent gun bans in court. But what can the Supreme Court do about a private company (Meta) telling another private company (Hi-Point) that it’s not welcome on its digital premises?

Barring social media companies becoming a public utility or common carrier like phone companies, there’s not much that can be done. These companies will assert they have the right to boot those who don’t follow their terms of service, and courts are already tossing some of the steps being taken to combat Silicon Valley’s censorship.

Here’s the thing – Second Amendment supporters don’t have to like Hi-Point to recognize the threat posed by Instagram’s actions, just as they don’t have to like the NRA or Wayne LaPierre to recognize the threat posed by the politically-motivated persecution Letitia James is inflicting. They have to be honest with themselves about the situation we face today.

When one looks at the situation in the United States, the threats are no longer solely in the political, legal, and legislative arenas. It’s far more likely these days that a local FFL will face a bank suddenly closing its accounts than it is to face action from the government. The social stigmatization of a Second Amendment supporter – either through boycotts or other adverse action from private actors (employers, etc.) – will do more to chill Second Amendment activism than campaign finance “reform” schemes. The decisions in a corporate suite may do more to infringe our rights than those in a governor’s office.

Second Amendment supporters have a lot of thinking to do. The tensions between personal liberty and the application of a form of non-discrimination law are hard to ignore. The best option could be to send companies a message that there is a lot of popular support for the Second Amendment. That can be done by defeating anti-Second Amendment extremists at all levels of government – federal, state, and local – via the ballot box as soon as possible.

About Harold Hutchison

Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post,, and other national websites.Harold Hutchison

Add Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *