Do gun dealers have to warn about suicide? Supreme Court declines to weigh in

WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a challenge by gun dealers to a Maryland county's rule that sellers of firearms or ammunition must display and distribute literature aimed at reducing gun violence.

The law was passed by Anne Arundel County in 2022 as part of the community’s response to a 2018 mass shooting at a newspaper office in the state capital.

The county says the law, “which requires commercial actors to warn about the risks posed by a potentially dangerous product they sell, is no different than other disclosures ubiquitous in American life.”

A First Amendment right to not talk about gun dangers?

But the gun dealers and gun rights group challenging the requirement say it’s a violation of their First Amendment right to stay silent.

They don’t want to distribute the suicide prevention pamphlet because they disagree that access to firearms is a risk factor for suicide, attorneys said in a filing. They also object to what they say is an implicit suggestion that people shouldn’t buy guns because they cause suicides.

The county said it specifically selected a pamphlet coauthored and promoted by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association for the firearms industry, so the material would not be misperceived as anti-gun.

Suicides have long accounted for the majority of the nation’s gun deaths, according to the Pew Research Center.

A federal district court judge ruled the information was factual, uncontroversial and served the government’s interest of trying to save lives. The Richmond-based 4 ^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.

“We conclude that the pamphlet is simply, and no more, a public health and safety advisory that does not discourage the purchase or ownership of guns,” Judge Paul Niemeyer wrote. “And we are confident that gun purchasers in Anne Arundel County will recognize it as such.”

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Do gun dealers have to warn about suicide? Supreme Court declines to weigh in