Debate surrounding Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 most often involves social media. But what about gun sales?
The question is worth asking because if Senate Democrats get their way, they’ll weaponize S230 reform to target online gun marketplaces. Conservatives urging repeal of Section 230 are playing right into their hands.
Section 230 enumerates in its “civil liability” clause that providers or users of an “interactive computer service” aren’t liable for third-party content posted there. Just as Facebook and Twitter aren’t liable for their users’ slander or misinformation, sites such as Armslist.com (the gun owner’s Craigslist) aren’t liable for illegal gun sales.
That doesn’t sit well with Sen. Dianne Feinstein. She recently introduced The Accountability for Online Firearms Marketplaces Act. If passed, her bill would “clarify” Section 230 to strip online firearms marketplaces, specifically Armslist.com, of immunity protections. “It’s time to start holding accountable those who turn a blind eye to illegal gun sales on their platforms,” Feinstein said.
If sites such as Armslist.com really were helping criminals to get guns, Feinstein would have a point. But that argument is weak.
Removing protections from online firearms marketplaces would have no measurable effect on curbing crime perpetrated by prohibited possessors. That’s because criminals typically don’t get their guns online. A 2019 Bureau of Justice Statistics report examined the source of criminal activities involving firearms. After interviewing over 200,000 prisoners, it found only 1.3% of respondents obtained firearms through a retailer. The majority of firearms used in crimes were primarily stolen or illegally obtained through the black market.
Sites such as Armslist.com are hardly the criminal enterprises that Feinstein makes them out to be.
Undoubtedly, there’s already legal precedent for Armlist.com to be afforded S230 protections. In Stokinger v. Armslist, the Massachusetts Superior Court ruled the Good Samaritan clause applies to them because they don’t “create the third party classified listings, nor is Armslist directly involved in the transaction.”
Alternatively, repealing the law’s civil liability clause would shift legal liability from federal firearms licensed dealers to sites such as Armslist. Not only would that undermine free speech, but it would also imperil lawful commerce involving private party transfers that may require background checks. Not to mention making these sites liable for the transactions they host does nothing to address criminal gun use. It just forces law enforcement to pursue cases against businesses instead of targeting criminals.
Feinstein and her Democratic Party colleagues deliberately misrepresent how firearms transactions are conducted. Whether a sale is processed online or in-person, a prospective buyer must be present for face-to-face transfers with a federally licensed dealer and complete ATF Form 4473. They also confirm their identity using a verified photo ID and submit to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Private gun sale buyers are also subjected to these rules.
In its terms of use, Armlist.com specifies for its users that any unlawful use of their website constitutes an “illegal purpose” and is therefore unauthorized. Their terms also state users must acknowledge that the website isn’t involved in transactions, that users are in accordance with applicable laws, and that users should field questions about firearms sales or transfers to the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco and Explosives if they arise.
Instead of targeting lawful businesses, Democrats should start tackling actual crime.
To my fellow conservatives eager to repeal Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act: Please reconsider. If you care about the Second Amendment and oppose frivolous lawsuits against the firearms industry, it’s imperative to combat efforts like this one.
Gabriella Hoffman is a Young Voices contributor. You can follow her on Twitter at @Gabby_Hoffman.
