Someone bought the gun.

THAT gun, the one that ended the life of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed teenager, during an altercation in Florida in 2012.

FILE - In this July 9, 2013, file photo, George Zimmerman leaves the courtroom for a lunch break his trial in Seminole Circuit Court, in Sanford, Fla. George Zimmerman says he’s vetting bids after closing an auction for the pistol he used to kill unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin during an altercation, Wednesday, May 18, 2016. The former neighborhood watch volunteer who was acquitted in the 2012 slaying says on his blog that the sale was successful, though he gives no details and says the buyer may choose to remain anonymous.. (Joe Burbank/Orlando Sentinel via AP, Pool, File) (The Associated Press)

George Zimmerman, the former neighborhood watch volunteer who shot Martin but said he did so in self-defense, was later acquitted of second-degree murder in a high-profile trial. And earlier this month, Zimmerman put the gun – a 9mm Kel-Tec PF-9 pistol – up for auction.


Someone bought the gun. THAT gun. For $250,000.

A few news reports have posited that the weapon falls into a unique category of commerce known as murderabilia, despite the fact that a jury found Zimmerman not guilty. The term is usually used to describe items — letters, autographs, artwork, fingernail clippings, swatches of hair — attributed to notorious criminals and their crimes.

So does the actual weapon used in the killing of 17-year-old Martin, count as murderabilia even without a murder conviction?

“I would probably classify it as murderabilia, yes,” said Andy Kahan, who coined the term more than a decade ago. “It’s an item that was used to take someone’s life.”


Kahan, victim advocate for the city of Houston, has been working for 16 years to prevent the sale of such items, or to at least prevent convicted killers from profiting off of their violent crimes. What usually happens, he said, is that a person imprisoned for murder or other violent crimes will use a third party to sell items that they’ve produced personally, like writings or paintings.

“No one should be able to rob, rape or murder and then turn around and make a buck off it,” Kahan said.

One way some states have tried to prevent that from happening was to pass “Son of Sam” laws, named for the signature used by serial killer David Berkowitz in letters he wrote to New York City police and media before he was caught. Typically, such laws have barred convicted criminals from selling the rights to their stories to be used in books and movies. (Berkowitz reportedly sold his story to a publishing house for $75,000.)

Many of those laws, however, have been challenged on the basis of free speech. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down New York’s “Son of Sam” law in 1991 on grounds that it violated the First Amendment.


As a private citizen, Zimmerman is free to sell almost anything he wants, but it’s not at all surprising that his decision to sell THAT gun has drawn public outrage. For many, the issue isn’t so much a legal one as a moral one.

“It’s distasteful,” said Kahan. “Frankly, it about as low as I’ve seen, (but) you cannot legislate bad taste.”

Now 32, Zimmerman defended his decision to sell the weapon in an interview that aired earlier this month on KNTV in Las Vegas. He called the gun “a piece of American history” and said he would use proceeds from the auction to push back against Democratic Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton and Black Lives Matter.

Politics aside, the situation poses an interesting question: By auctioning off a pistol associated with a notorious shooting, is Zimmerman not only exercising is rights under the Second Amendment but the First Amendment as well? In other words, is selling THAT gun also a form of free speech?


Professor Glenn Smith, from California Western School of Law in San Diego, said it could be. He said speech can appear in typical commercial forms, like newspapers or magazines, or something less usual like a sales transaction. A recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court indicated it may not matter, in the eyes of the law, whether a person actually intends to send a message, only that he or she is perceived as doing so.

“If people think that (Zimmerman) is trying to make some kind of statement by selling the gun, or that the buyer was trying to make a statement, that would enhance the the free speech protection,” Smith said.

In 2002, after the repeal of its original “Son of Sam law,” California passed a different law that gave victims of violent crimes or their families up to 10 years, instead of one year, to sue the perpetrators for damages. Since then, at least seven other states have followed suit.

Kahan said such laws, which are intended to prevent criminals from using their notoriety for profit, are hard to enforce because murderabilia is often sold across state lines. What’s really needed, he said, is a federal law that meets the objective without impinging upon the right to free speech.


“Talk about (the crime) all you want, just don’t make money from it,” Kahan said.