A growing trend across the country should have gun owners paying attention: Meta is quietly pushing age‑verification mandates through state legislatures, and the implications go far beyond smartphones and social media.
Several years ago in Idaho, a lawmaker introduced what became known as the “cell phone bill.” It required every cell phone manufacturer to implement mandatory age verification before a phone could even be activated. Meta backed the legislation, claiming it was necessary to keep minors from accessing pornography.
Buried inside the bill was a provision so alarming that multiple lobbyists approached me and asked, “Do you think this could be a problem for gun owners?”
When I reviewed the bill, which never mentioned “gun,” “firearm,” or anything close, the danger was obvious. The legislation created a new legal pathway allowing the state government to sue cell phone manufacturers if they failed to comply with the age‑verification mandate.
Think about that: companies that do not produce pornography could be sued for the misuse of their products. That should sound familiar. Anti‑gun activists have spent years trying to establish the same liability framework against gun manufacturers, suing them for criminal misuse of products they lawfully made.
We warned the bill sponsor that this was laying the legal groundwork for a dangerous precedent: punishing manufacturers for actions they did not commit. If that door opens, gun owners will be the next target.
After defeating that bill several years in a row, Meta shifted tactics. They are now pushing “age‑verification” bills nationwide, and several states have already passed them.
These new bills mirror the cell phone bill’s structure. They require every app distributed through Google’s Android ecosystem or Apple’s App Store to implement age verification. To use everyday apps, you would have to submit personal data to a third‑party verifier, creating massive privacy, security, and constitutional concerns.
For gun owners, this is more than an inconvenience. It threatens First Amendment rights, especially for anyone discussing firearms, training, advocacy, or political issues online. It also raises serious questions about data collection, storage, and government access to personal information.
I reached out to major national gun organizations for help, but none were willing to engage. Even some local groups hesitated because the bills weren’t “directly” about firearms.
Meanwhile, Ted Nugent recognized the threat immediately and helped fight the bill in his home state of Kansas. If Nugent can see the danger, perhaps he can help push national groups to join the fight.
Gun owners cannot afford to focus only on legislation that explicitly mentions firearms. Anti‑Second Amendment activists are constantly searching for new angles, and indirect regulatory frameworks are one of their favorite tools.
These bills are a threat not only to privacy, but to our ability to communicate about the Second Amendment without government‑mandated permission slips.
Stay alert. Watch for these bills in your state.
