I am looking to release a product that speaks, rather indirectly, to Pro-2A sentiments, using imagery alone.

I am not a firearms manufacturer or an FFL, but I own an ad and design agency that wholly services the 2A and veteran owned space.

A spooky acquaintance of an acquaintance of mine took a look at the imagery that we devised and said that if I were to produce it, we should expect a 3 letter agency to kick down our doors, black bag us, and to never see our families again.  This person is also a moderator of a FB forum that, at first blush, seems to be even more paranoid than the most paranoid threads on this site.

I balanced that conversations out by speaking to an actual constitutional law attorney, who told me that commercial free speech is protected, so long as it is not soliciting minors or inciting violence.  He also emphasized that the CA legislature around marketing firearms towards minors has recently been appealed because the way the manufacturers and their liability are described is deliberately vague, and the bill, liek all anti 2A bills, is a "wedge" move.

In the final analysis, I think the truth is probably somewhere in between the two: Speech is protected, AND we are in such divisive times with so much government overreach there is no telling who will be made an example of (see Cody Wilson arrest)

Is the imagery I am thinking of putting out SO powerful that it will graduate from being a piece of merchandise specific to our firm and brand to creating a movement?  Honestly I originally had hoped so.  But now I'm thinking about approaching it as something simply "cool" and ancillary.  It would be such a stretch to assign the product any violent or subversive meaning.  There is no slogan attached.  There is nothing photographically to even assign it to the 2A world, except for the fact that its being sold by a 2A ad agency.  i am also nowhere near marketing towards minors, however, one can make the case for ANY imagery being juvenile in nature, and I am working with illustration styles that are simple and playful.

This is a pretty broad and vague question, but I think what I'm getting at is: which way is the wind blowing?  How are people who make 2A IMAGERY fairing?    How does imagery graduate into domestic terrorism, and can your image being co-opted by bad actors make you liable for their violent behavior?

Lastly, can anyone point me to a legal disclaimer as it pertains to pro 2A imagery that woudl help limit any liability?

OR...is this still America, where you can express yourself as you see fit so long as no one is injured, and is this post is moot?

What you pose here is very interesting. I think in the most general terms you want to avoid specific disclaimers mentioning 2A, militias, or anything of the sort. Just a general copyright. Any mention beyond that could be twisted by someone else's lawyer to show that you knew full well that your imagery was targeting a specific demographic and that it was intended to be used to elicit a certain response.

As to the wind... I mean,  we live in a world where weirdos are doing weirdo things and writing manifestos every day. The government is targeting people, media is canceling people, folks are being sued for all sorts of shit... it's always a gamble. What you put out there will either be embraced or rejected. Chances are either way it will come and go quickly. If you're lucky, it will become one of those very few, iconic images that stand the test of time. You really can't know until you put it out there. Let your work speak for itself. Give it too much context and you also provide ammunition to those who will oppose your message.

Locate and contact a Second Amendment, pro gun attorney and have a discussion.

As a matter of fact I did.  This is where my information about marketing towards minors comes from.   Im not even beholden to that law, because a) it applies to firearms manufacturers and FFLs, and its a California law.  I'm neither, and I'm not in CA.

Every lawyers response is always going to be "it depends".  But that same lawyer, off the clock, in a bar, says of this project: "I would be pretty surprised if you got black-bagged over something like this."

At this point I woudl be remiss if I didn't go through with the project.  The interesting twist to me is that if I assign it NO language, anyone can assign their own meaning and language to the image.  if I go ahead and say something like 9For Example) "Do Not Comply", I am embracing my own specific message, rather than allowing it to be subverted or contorted.

So now my question becomes, is using (for example) non-compliance language inciting violence?  To me this example is actually calling for a LACK of action, not any direct action.

I am sure that my commercial free speech is covered here, but I cat ignore that we are living at an inflection point where it comes to the 1st and 2nd.  In the America we know, you can make and sell what you want - as long as you don't yell "fire" in a theater you're protected.  but in this new America, it seems like anything can happen.  Any 3 letter agency will have to weight the rewards of stamping out a message against the risk of a civil rights case.  but so will I.

I wan to make something iconic that lasts, but I also don't do well in holding.  My (our) biggest worry is that tour imagery will be taken up by extremists or other monitored groups, or just even one bad actor.  Whats our liability there?   So now we come back to the general copyright vs. specific disclaimer that responder brought up.

I think your copyright is your protection in any case. If bad actors use your image, you demand they stop as they are violating your copyright, at least if they are reproducing it. Similarly, if your image is being used that way, issuing such demands is also your insulation from liability; your clear message that you don't consent or endorse such usage or the organization violating your copyright.

This is a very succinct reply and i appreciate it.