This may have actionable consequences if the plaintiffs appeal to the area of tort law called intentional tort. This is the legal theory that covers any deliberate interference with a legally recognized interest, such as the right to keep and bear arms. Other things such as the rights to bodily integrity, emotional tranquility, dominion over property, seclusion from public scrutiny, and freedom from confinement or deception would qualify. It is true that any jury would have to balance this against First Amendment issues, but applying a “reasonable person” standard, the “seclusion from public scrutiny” might carry some weight. The firearm owner is not a public figure, so the “absence of malice” defense would not apply. Remember that a unanimous vote of the jury is not required in tort cases.
I’d suggest taking a look at Cox Broadcasting v. Cohen, 420 U.S. 469 (1975).