Another firearms company just got the YouTube treatment.
Wyoming-based Big Horn Armory announced that YouTube permanently terminated the company’s channel after issuing three strikes against videos that had been online for more than two years without issue.
And here’s the part that has a lot of gun owners rolling their eyes: The videos weren’t new. The rules were.
According to Big Horn Armory, the strikes stemmed from YouTube’s updated firearms policies, which the company says were applied retroactively to older content that had previously complied with platform standards.
In other words, imagine driving 55 mph in 2023, then getting a speeding ticket in 2026 because somebody lowered the speed limit after the fact.
That’s essentially the argument BHA is making.
SEE ALSO: Geissele King Hunter Review: 7mm Heat, Half-MOA Bite
The company says the flagged videos consisted of routine firearms content, including range demonstrations and product showcases. One reportedly featured employees shooting frozen chickens, which sounds more like a Saturday afternoon in Wyoming than a threat to civilization.
According to Big Horn Armory, the videos contained no instructions for manufacturing firearms, no modification tutorials, and no direct sales content. Yet they still drew strikes.
The culprit appears to be YouTube’s increasingly restrictive firearms policies.
Among the provisions cited by the company is language prohibiting certain content that depicts individuals holding, handling, or transporting firearms in specific contexts. Big Horn Armory believes those standards have expanded well beyond the platform’s previous rules and are now being applied to videos uploaded years earlier.
The company says it pursued YouTube’s appeal process but was unsuccessful. That’s especially frustrating because BHA notes it had successfully overturned similar strikes in the past.
This time, every appeal was denied. Owner Greg Buchel didn’t sound particularly optimistic about fighting the decision.
“We did not change our content,” Buchel said. “The platform changed its standards and applied them retroactively to videos our community had watched for years without issue.”
SEE ALSO: The SIG P365 Family: Still the Benchmark for Everyday Carry
Honestly, that’s the part likely to resonate most with gun owners. Whether you’re a fan of Big Horn Armory or not, most people can understand the frustration of being judged under rules that didn’t exist when the content was created.
The good news for fans of big-bore rifles is that the videos aren’t gone. They’re just gone from YouTube.
Big Horn Armory says its entire video catalog remains available on Rumble, where the company plans to continue posting rifle reviews, hunting footage, product demonstrations, and shooting content.
As for YouTube?
The divide between the firearms industry and the world’s largest video platform doesn’t appear to be getting any smaller.
*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! ***
Available on GunsAmerica Now
is a seasoned outdoorsman, lifelong hunter, and the kind of guy who’d rather track whitetails than scroll social media. As an editor for GunsAmerica, he’s got a sharp eye for spotting both solid gear and bad gun laws. Whether he’s deep in the woods or deep in editorial deadlines, Larry brings a no-nonsense, tell-it-like-it-is approach to firearms, hunting, and the great American tradition of self-reliance. If there’s a hot debate on gun rights or the latest in hunting tech, you can bet Larry’s got an opinion—and it’s probably backed up with both facts and field experience.
Experience:
– Licensed Bowhunter, Hunter, and Trapper – Experienced in ethical hunting and wildlife conservation.
– Concealed Carry Permit Holder (NYS & AZ) – Trained and licensed to carry in multiple states.
– 2A Journalist – Covering firearms legislation, Second Amendment issues, and gun rights for over a decade.
– Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) – Certified to provide emergency medical care in the field.
– Field-Tested Gear Reviewer – Hands-on experience with firearms, optics, and hunting tech.
YouTube needs to be bankrupted
Why companies and people still bother with YouTube is beyond me. Stick to rumble.
YouTube removed a video of my minor daughter shooting a gun, which had been online for over 10 years. They didn’t, however, give me a strike for it, but they warned me about it.
This “community protection” BS is the same line of crap that the communists in China used to wipe out everybody in the Tianamen Square massacre. Don’t believe me go look. YouTube is a cancer on this country. Their community standards is nothing more than communist censorship claiming protection of their community, what a bunch of garbage.!
FYI, I have had one of my YouTube channels, @alpharomeo15, given strikes on videos that has been up there for two years also and all I do is show people how to build an AR-15 and where to go to get the parts shown in the video!
How about if Big Horn Armory starts their own Internet website to post videos? Or maybe the NRA who seems to waste a lot of money getting nothing done… Could sponsor a site were gun owners could leave YouTube and go over to it. The only way to stop companies like YouTube is to leave them. You have to show them they’re not needed.
There’s just no use or sense in complaining about how a company wants to run their website. It belongs to alphabet Inc. so let them run their own race… And we should run ours!
hey numbnuts it’s called free speech look up the 1A for guidance
The name calling is unwarranted. Especially since you are incorrect: A private entity is not subject to the legal free speech guarantees under the First Amendment.
sure, name calling ain’t allowed just for me……i get it laws for me not for thee. you-tube is a public entity and any speech that is censored is against the constitution period!
YouTube is a private company; it is a subsidiary of Google, LLC, which is a subsidiary of its parent company Alphabet, Inc and which is publicly traded (by shareholders) but IS NOT a government entity) so it is not legally bound by the First Amendment to host or allow all forms of speech. The First Amendment only protects citizens from GOVERNMENT censorship. Courts have consistently ruled that private platforms like YouTube have their own rights to moderate, curate, or remove content as they see fit. Because YouTube operates as a private entity rather than a government agency, its content moderation decisions are not subject to constitutional scrutiny. When users create an account, they contractually agree to YouTube’s Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. YouTube relies on these rules—NOT the First Amendment—to dictate what content is or is not permitted.
“user agreement” just an allowed end around the 1A much like hate speech, and gun laws to the 2A
It’s not an “end around” the First Amendment because, once again, the First Amendment doesn’t apply to Youtube. The First Amendment only applies to government and Youtube (and its parent corporate structure) are not government.
so your contention is that people have no rights outside of government and non-government entities can do what ever they like and run rough shot over u.s.citizens……..how communistic of you!
No, not my contention. What I have expressed (twice now) is what is literally written within the First Amendment.
If you don’t like that the First Amendment, as it is written, only protects free speech from GOVERNMENT abridgement, then I suggest you figure out a way to amend the language.
Using your logic I’ll ask you a question: Are you running roughshod over someone else’s free speech if you won’t let them put a mural of a political statement contrary to your beliefs on the side of your house (on your private property)?
Hint: The answer is no. Because someone else’s free speech doesn’t trump your private property rights. Same with Youtube.
I don’t like that Youtube restricts certain material and I disagree with them deplatforming content (especially gun content) and that they are apparently biased towards the political Left. It pisses me off. But Youtube is still well within their legal right to do so.
the way i read it is that the government’s job is supposed to protect free speech. speech is speech as it is spoken a mural is an action and not spoken. twist and interpret all you want but the day will come when communist tricks will fall by the wayside!
GOA, shadow banning?
so by those standards are they banning hollywood trailers and news shows?