Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey has fired a shot across the bow of Big Tech, launching a formal investigation into whether major social media platforms are intentionally suppressing Second Amendment-related content — a move that Washington Gun Law’s William Kirk calls a potential game-changer for online 2A advocacy.
According to Kirk, the platforms targeted — including Google/YouTube and Meta — have long made it nearly impossible for 2A creators to earn a living or even speak openly about firearms.
“Just about every single platform that we deal with candidly hates our guts,” Kirk said in a recent Washington Gun Law video.
“It thwarts the ability of content creators to make a living, but more importantly, it suppresses open conversation about our rights,” he said.
The Investigation
Attorney General Bailey’s civil investigative demands cite potential violations of Missouri’s fair trade practices law.
He accuses platforms of misleading users about how they handle 2A content and may be unfairly targeting posts about firearms, hunting, self-defense, and related political opinions.
In Bailey’s words:
“The right to keep and bear arms is one of the most sacred and cherished rights guaranteed to the citizens of the state of Missouri under the Constitution of the United States… If citizens are prevented from owning modern firearms, the government holds a monopoly on the use of force.”
The AG’s demand letters request internal documents related to content “banning, restricting, prohibiting, delisting, downranking, suppressing, demoting, demonetizing, or otherwise obscuring” any post, video, or image tied to gun rights.
SEE ALSO: Taurus Raging Judge Returns!
That includes monetized content and communications with outside entities.
And those “outside entities” may include more than just advertisers. Bailey is also demanding communications between the platforms and the Biden Administration, FBI, ATF, and major gun control groups like Brady, Giffords, and Everytown — potentially exposing whether government pressure has been influencing content moderation policies.
Why It Matters
Kirk emphasized that this issue goes far beyond demonetized videos or throttled reach.
“This suppression of speech has a devastating impact on the exercise of Second Amendment rights throughout the entire country,” he warned.
While Bailey’s deadline for responses is set for August 26, the broader implications could reverberate well beyond Missouri.
If the investigation uncovers evidence of political targeting or collusion, it could provide the legal foundation for further action — and possibly federal scrutiny.
Kirk concluded with a stark reminder: “We can’t exercise our Second Amendment rights if we’re not even allowed to talk about them.”
*** 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.
I hate to break it to everyone, states attorneys included, but Big Tech is not the government, it’s a bunch of private businesses that can restrict their platforms as they please (as per their User Agreements, which they can change whenever they like). The 2A only prevents the government from infringing on our rights. If we don’t like the anti-gun policies of a Big Tech platform like, say YouTube, we have to “vote with our feet” — and our money — by abandoning those platforms in favor of friendlier platforms.
Two things. First, yes they are private businesses, but there is an exception to the rule that they can publish or not publish what they please that may come into play. Basically, when those sites become in effect a “public forum” akin to the crate on the corner of the public square, then they might become subject to the First Amendment. That exception has not been applied to any of the big tech companies–yet. We will have to wait and see how it turns out. Obviously this ill be a hard fought battle with the best attorneys money can buy.
Second, voting with you feet and moving elsewhere is, for the producers of content, not as easy as it seems. A few years ago, when the purge of gun sites began, content producers were bemoaning the high cost of setting up alternative internet forums. The Firearm Blog has numerous articles on that subject.
You raise good points.
However, equating a Big Tech product (YouTube, Facebook, etc.) with a crate on a public corner will never happen. Regardless of how popular these sites become, they’ll always be clearly privately owned and operated; they’ll never be legally equated to the metaphor of the public square. It’s the same difference as between a public street and a privately owned road. Firearm Blog articles notwithstanding, it’s just a legal fiction that will never fly, even with the current 2A-friendly Supreme Court. Even I, as one who loathes the anti-2A policies of most social media, would not approve of government intrusion to stop it in either a physical place or cyberspace.
Additionally, the fact that there are multiple social media platforms (choices) will always argue that they can’t be equated to that one public corner. If there was only a single social media platform, a monopoly, the comparison might be different. Trump’s Truth Social, ironically, argues that anyone who doesn’t like existing Big Tech policies can just go out and create their own platform, rather than legislate policies for existing platforms.
I understand the hardship the current environments present to 2A content providers, but I see no viable alternatives to seeking alternate platforms or finding ways to exert the money or advertising powers of 2A users.
In the end, American gun owners have to learn to throw our weight and numbers into the fray to counter that of Everytown, Brady, Moms Demand Action, etc.
Here’s an idea… Why don’t you get the NRA to open their own social media site? I mean after all… They ridiculously hammer you with donation requests every few months after you’ve joined. In fact they probably waste more money in mailings than they get back in donations. Plus it doesn’t seem the upper echelon is hurting too bad in the salary department so they should be able to start something with just a little bit of donations of their salaries.
“If citizens are prevented from owning modern firearms, the government holds a monopoly on the use of force.” – Missouri A.G. Bailey
That is absolutely the best +2A sentence ever written, other than the 2A itself.
don’t use any of them, they seem to cause more problems than gains!