The US Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently reached a verdict on a Maryland county regulation. According to the ruling, firearm dealers are constitutionally obligated to provide suicide prevention literature at the point of sale in accordance with US Constitution’s First Amendment.
In response to the increasing incidence of suicide, Anne Arundel County in Maryland declared it a public health crisis. In January 2022, the county passed an ordinance mandating the county’s health department to prepare and distribute literature on suicide prevention to every establishment trading in guns or ammunition. This ordinance ensures that the literature is distributed to customers at the point of purchase.
The literature comprises an eight-page pamphlet titled ‘Firearms and Suicide Prevention’ and a single-page flyer providing information about Anne Arundel’s resources for conflict resolution, including where to procure a suicide-prevention toolkit.
Opposition to this directive came from four gun dealerships in Anne Arundel County and a gun rights corporation. They filed a suit to block the enforcement of the law. Their argument was that the obligation to share suicide prevention literature coerces gun dealers into propagating the county’s message about gun safety, suicide prevention, mental health, conflict resolution, and gun training, thereby infringing on their First Amendment right to refrain from speaking on such issues.
However, in March 2023, the lower court granted summary judgment in favor of the county, and the gun distributors subsequently appealed. The Fourth Circuit Court upheld the judgment of the lower court. In its verdict, the court agreed that while the ordinance indeed compels speech, it does so constitutionally as it includes compulsory commercial speech that is factual and non-controversial, and also advances a government interest. The court heavily relied on the US Supreme Court’s decision in Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio, which declared the laws limiting attorney advertising unconstitutional. The lower court likened the obliged speech to warning labels on food or cigarette packages.
For more information, visit the full article here.