Try to figure out this newspaper's gun advertising policy...

[SteveM]

From the Gainesville (Fla) Sun's classified ads policy for No. 7345, Guns & Rifles:

"We will no longer accept handgun or assault weapon advertising by private parties. Licensed gun dealers will be allowed to offer handguns and legal semiautomatic weapons for sale in the classified section, providing a dealer's license number is in the ad copy of their State or FL dealer's license is on file with the Star-Banner/Gainesville Sun. Private individuals can still advertise hunting rifles and shotguns in the classified. In no case will we advertise any weapon that is prohibited by law from being sold, including any 'semiautomatic assault weapon' or copies or duplicates thereof."

The Sun and the Star/Banner are both owned by the New York Times. When the Sun shrunk its page width by l.5" on Wednesday, December 2nd, the above policy was no longer present under the appropriate classified department for firearms.

[ogneopasno]

1. Seems clear to me.

What's the question?

[benEzra]

3. Contradictions and inconsistencies...

"We will no longer accept handgun or assault weapon advertising by private parties. Licensed gun dealers will be allowed to offer handguns and legal semiautomatic weapons for sale in the classified section, providing a dealer's license number is in the ad copy of their State or FL dealer's license is on file with the Star-Banner/Gainesville Sun. Private individuals can still advertise hunting rifles and shotguns in the classified. In no case will we advertise any weapon that is prohibited by law from being sold, including any 'semiautomatic assault weapon' or copies or duplicates thereof."

The Sun and the Star/Banner are both owned by the New York Times. When the Sun shrunk its page width by l.5" on Wednesday, December 2nd, the above policy was no longer present under the appropriate classified department for firearms.

Could an individual list this gun for sale, or not?



It is both a hunting rifle and a "semiautomatic assault weapon" according to the gun-control lobby. So it is both allowed and prohibited.

Ditto for hunting shotguns with handgrips that stick out, semiautomatic hunting rifles with screw-on muzzle brakes, etc. For example, this one:



Also, there seems to be the mistaken perception that "semiautomatic assault weapons" are "prohibited by law from being sold," when in fact they are "legal semiautomatic weapons", as are most handguns.

All in all, it looks like it was written by someone who got their knowledge of guns and gun law from watching CSI reruns.

[ogneopasno]

5. Ha! That's what I get for reading it as a newspaper employee,

and not checking on the guns. I didn't see that this was in the gun forum. My apologies, and my thanks -- next time I'm faced with something like this, I'll ask someone who knows.

[hoplophile]

2. So is there a board of some kind to decide

What semi-automatic hunting rifles will be allowed? Have they published a definition of what THEY consider assault rifles?

[JonQ]

4. The AWB expired

so why do they think "semiautomatic assault weapons" are prohibited by law? Ignorance seems to play heavily in this.

[SteveM]

6. Maybe why they dropped the policy: they didn't want to define terms (nt)

[JonQ]

8. The problem with these sorts of policies

is that they're always meant to be left vague.

[SteveM]

9. Vague, and the media doesn't want to confront itself, intellectually (n t)

[Howzit]

11. Maybe they know more than you think

Perhaps they have information on a new AWB being passed...

[jody]

7. Is the author stupid or just grossly ignorant? She or he is clearly a member of the beetle battalion

[iverglas]

10. have you tried asking it?

Novel idea, I know ...

I'm sure the paper would be deeply grateful for any and all comments about the policies it applies to the use of its private property, too.

[benEzra]

12. Why? They apparently deleted the ill-informed policy. (n/t)

[iverglas]

13. oh?

It has apparently stopped printing it above published ads. Whether it has stopped applying it when ads are placed, I don't think we know.

[rangersmith82]

14. You cannot stop someone from posting a ad

for selling perfectly legal personal property.

Just who in the fuck does the paper think they are???

Sounds like they are a bunch of Brady bunch supporters.

[iverglas]

15. I give up

Just who in the fuck does the paper think they are???

The owners of private property who can do whatever the fuck they want with it, I would think.

Freedom of speech, y'know?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

16. I wonder if they refused ads to women or to muslims if you would feel the same?

[iverglas]

17. I wonder when you're going to get a hint of a shadow of a clue

There are laws that prohibit discrimination ON SPECIFIC GROUNDS in the provision of goods and services to the public.

Sex and religion, and race/ethnicity and national origin, and age in certain circumstances, and sexual orientation in civilized societies, are commonly prohibited grounds of discrimination.

Is the desire to sell a particular kind of firearm, or to sell anything else, a prohibited ground of discrimination?

I didn't think so.

As long as a newspaper doesn't, oh, allow purple men to advertise Item X in its pages while not allowing green women to do so, it has no problem.

And you have no point. As usual.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

18. So you were wrong when you said.....

"The owners of private property who can do whatever the fuck they want with it, I would think."

I guess the owners can't do whatever they want now can they. As usual, you get caught in a gross oversimplification.

David

[iverglas]

19. no

As usual, you have no point.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

20. Yes, I'm right, you're wrong.

[HALO141]

21. I don't quite know what to say....

I find myself in complete agreement with iverglas.

The paper is, indeed, their property and they can print (or not) pretty much what they want to.

The whole problem with liberty is that people must be free to be jerks if they so wish. If they are not then none of us are really free in the first place.

Isn't anyone else familiar with the phrase, "You are free to do what we tell you?"

[benEzra]

22. That wasn't the OP's point; the OP was deconstructing it, not criticizing it.

The tone seems to be "try to figure out this clueless policy," not "they have no right to set ad policy," if I read it correctly.

It is very clear from reading it that whoever wrote it got their gun knowledge from watching CSI reruns and playing Counter Strike, and it shows.

Case in point, all three of the following guns are simultaneously prohibited and explicitly allowed by the policy:



Not to mention the misconception that "semiautomatic assault weapons" are something other than "legal semiautomatic weapons".

Yes, they have the right to set whatever policy they want, but that doesn't mean it is above critique.