Louisiana Senator John Kennedy Introduces Bill to De-Fund Corporate Gun Control

Louisiana Senator Sen John Kenneday Red and Blue Banks Bill

courtesy bloomberg.com and AP

Since Parkland, the anti-gun left has enlisted the help of corporate America to do what they haven’t been able to accomplish through federal legislation or the courts – squeeze the NRA and the gun industry. We’ve seen car rental companies, airlines, cybersecurity companies and even cooler makers drop their affiliate deals with the NRA.

What’s more, thanks to the efforts of Governor Soprano and his Empire State regulatory agencies, banks and insurance companies have also been pressured into dumping their business relationships with the NRA and stop lending to firearms manufacturers.

Now, one US Senator wants to do something about that where banks are concerned.

In response to banking institutions that have imposed policies against business related to the firearms industry in the wake of  the deadly school shooting in Florida earlier in the year, Louisiana Republican Sen. John Kennedy proposed legislation prior the recess that would prohibit the federal government from granting contracts to banks that discriminate against lawful businesses and based only on social policy considerations.

Kennedy was no doubt inspired by the successful efforts in his home state to cut Citibank and B of A out of the state’s road improvement bond underwriting business.

“Targeting firearms owners and business owners is not only an affront to responsible gun owners across this country; it’s a threat to the sanctity of our Constitution and the Second Amendment,” Kennedy said before the Committee earlier in the month.

He went on to say, “Citigroup and Bank of America have decided to make banking a red versus blue issue by trampling on the Second Amendment rights of small business owners. And if additional big consumer banks come out with similar anti-gun policies, it will get harder and harder for businesses in Louisiana and elsewhere to find banking services. We’ll have red banks and blue banks.”

He added, “I want to make sure that the federal government isn’t rewarding this behavior with even more taxpayer dollars. I have already petitioned the General Services Administration to cancel the federal government’s $700 billion contract with Citigroup.”

We’ll second that emotion. Kennedy’s bill doesn’t tell the big banks who they can and can’t do business with. It only stipulates that if they decide to pick and choose their customers based on political and social justice considerations, then taxpayer dollars won’t be spent to subsidize the practice.

 

comments

  1. avatar m. says:

    excellent, tell the d-suckers where to put it

  2. avatar VerendusAudeo says:

    Good ‘ol federal overreach. Republicans only care if Democrats do something they don’t like.

    1. avatar drunkEODguy says:

      “Kennedy’s bill doesn’t tell the big banks who they can and can’t do business with. It only stipulates that if they choose to pick and choose its customers based on political and social justice considerations, then taxpayer dollars won’t be spent to subsidize the practice.”

      Point to me where the overreach is again? This is literally just a bill stating that refusing customers for any political or social reasons means the Fed will take its business elsewhere. Literally, this bill is about the fed choosing about who it does business with, just like these businesses have. The only real issue is that most people don’t reflect on such legislation coming back to bite them, such as if a conservative bank decides not to do business with a pro-abortion org for example. Even in such cases there’s no overreach here, just the feds determining for the feds which businesses and banks the Fed gives fed dollars to.

      1. avatar luigi says:

        I think I’ve become the states’ rights guy on here (maybe I should change my name to “Calhoun’s Ghost”) but drunkEODguy is right. Nothing wrong with what the bill does.

        Heck, the feds shouldn’t even be working with banks in the first place

      2. avatar paul bukovinsky says:

        Thank u for explaining that to everyone.

    2. “Ring! Ring! That’s CNN calling…They want all CNN Trolls to report back to home base…

      1. avatar Jeremy B. says:

        Is he wrong? What if this was in response to banks telling abortion clinics that they would do business with them?

        How is this different than baking cakes for gay weddings?

        1. avatar luigi says:

          It’s not really any different, the feds can choose who they do or don’t conduct business with. I don’t see how substituting abortion clinics for gun businesses changes things

        2. avatar binder says:

          ” the bank has the right to do business with whoever it wants to”. True, but do you want federal government doing business with political entities? Because once banks start discriminating against customer based on a political postion, they become political entities.

        3. avatar Craig in IA says:

          The primary difference is that if the bank does continue on it’s political justice witch hunt, it will remain in business minus federal subsidy. Not baking a cake for a gay wedding will certainly get you dragged into court BY THE STATE and your business will be curtailed- you lose everything you worked hard for and will likely never recover from it. Either way- the banking institutions and the social justice activists are seeking to destroy anyone who might dare to hold a different (and in the case of firearms business- a Constitutionally legal industry) point of view from them. It’d be smart for a lot of the gun law genius-types around here to get on board with Kennedy rather than try to find some wormhole for criticism. Cynicism will not help the Constitution or the Second Amendment.

    3. avatar Jeremy B. says:

      I was just thinking of other possible ramifications. Banks woun’t be able to say no to…
      – abortion groups
      – legal gambling institutions
      – porn industry
      – legal marijuana
      – pyramid schemes
      – the KKK/BLM/Antifa/etc.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Pyramid schemes are illegal, otherwise, yes. As it should be.

        1. avatar RMS1911 says:

          Social security is a pyramid scheme.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Nobody seems to have proven that, yet.

      2. avatar anonymoose says:

        Time for me to bust into the porn and pot industries if this passes, then. 😀

      3. avatar binder says:

        Weed is still a federal crime. As for KKK/BLM/Antifa, basic banking services should not be withheld, but I sure the bank can make a case of high risk when it comes to loans. Good luck showing that same risk factor for the NRA.

        1. avatar Nanashi says:

          You could make a case the leadership is almost trying to undermine the organization. It hasn’t been a year since the last time they got serious backlash from their membership about positions it never officially backtracked on…

        2. avatar Frank says:

          Nanashi, The leadership of the NRA reflects the views of its members. You are not a member, nor do you do a thing to support the second amendment, so STFU

        3. avatar Craig in IA says:

          “Nanashi, The leadership of the NRA reflects the views of its members. You are not a member, nor do you do a thing to support the second amendment, so STFU” No- let him spew on- that’s the American way. Seriously.

          He either knows that the entire gun debate would have been over back in the 1990s without NRA or he’s absolutely delusional.

          The best defense against people like him, or the democrat socialists, or anyone else trying to drag this great nation (and those things that still seem to make it great) down to the level of the common banana republic or mideastern Krapistan is to let them blather on. Then use their own words against them when the time comes.

          Which makes me wonder when the Republican party is going to start using the democrat idiotic statements and actions during the Kavanaugh hearings against them in campaign commercials. Better hurry, guys- that stuff was definitely made for TV ads. Clawing at the door of SCOTUS? Guilty until proven innocent? Revocation of due process? The majority of the US is not there, yet.

          .

        4. avatar Big E says:

          NRA= Brett Kavanaugh, Nanashi = Christine Blasey-Ford.

    4. Both of these banks are federally chartered banks and thus are member banks of the Federal Reserve. A perk of being a member of the Federal Reserve is that they can borrow money at the Fed.’s Discount Rate, currently 2.75%
      Even with borrowing money in 2008-2009 from the Fed.. at a rate of 1% to 2% then loaning it out at 8% to 28% Citibank received a bailout from TARP (us taxpayers’) of $476.2 billion.
      Bank of America didn’t need as much of our money. Their bailout amount was $45 billion with guarantees of another $118 billion.
      This is one of the few cases that is not “Federal Overreach”.

    5. avatar jaac12000 says:

      That’s about the dumbest response I’ve seen regarding this issue. You must be very proud of your lack of ability to address a pressing political and social concern. On the other hand, I honestly expect that you’re simply a paid shill. And as such you really don’t care one way or the other as long as you get your money.

    6. avatar Eric says:

      How is that government overreach? The bill States if your business wants to be in the social justice crap then government is not going to do business with you.

  3. avatar pg2 says:

    Non-news.

  4. avatar tdiinva says:

    There is already a law on the books to deal with. It’s called the Sherman Antitrust Act. Anybody can use it to go after the financial institutions engaged in restaint of interstate commerce.

    1. avatar binder says:

      Really, the Sherman Act? OK, would love to here your theory.

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        The banks are engaged in a conspiracy to restrain interstate commerce in a legal product. I believe that is kind of what the act is supposed to deal with. The Sherman Act does not require the target to have an effective monopoly. You only have to show than a firm or combination of firms has the market power to inflict economic harm

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          “I believe that is kind of what the act is supposed to deal with.”

          Not even close.

      2. avatar Joe Forgetyou says:

        So explain why not, gasbag.

  5. avatar Michael says:

    A “Kennedy” connected to a bill that’s not both out front irrationally and rabidly anti-2nd Amendment is not bad thing. I guess there’s always someone’s quick to find the dark cloud rather than the Silver lining. We’ve got to stop shooting ourselves in the foot and stop attacking everything that moves before it plays out. If it’s not illegal, like it or not, the organizations and causes listed above have the same Constitutional rights and protections we do. That’s not my opinion, that’s why we have a Constitution. I’m not AT ALL in favor of any of the causes listed above. It’s up to citizens to vote the politicians in or out to decide and then hold them responsible to do it. Not the banks, not the billionaires, not the MSM, not the PACs and certainly not anyone quickly willing to trade other peoples rights away as long as the ones they like are protected. The system doesn’t work like that. If it did we’d have lost the whole 2nd Amendment struggle back in ’68. We have to unfailingly support and defend ALL of the Constitution, not try to pick it apart. This is non-negotiable; “I don’t support any of what you believe in, but I’ll FIGHT to the DEATH for your right to believe it”. It’s the Law of the Land, not an a la carte menu. Foxtrot-Kilo-Alpha. -30-

  6. avatar Jon in CO says:

    How is a bank doing this not descrimination? At least by leftist definition. That’s almost like asking to see voter registration cards before business is conducted, and if you’re register says the wrong affiliation then you get shown the door. I get the point of the bill, and good on them, but why in the world does the fed even need private banking? Once upon a time we made our own money, and had our own banking system. Ditch the Fed Reserve, go back to congressional controlled money, and be done with this nonsense.

  7. avatar Ralph says:

    Finally, a Kennedy who isn’t a drunk, a drug addict, a rapist, a killer or a really sh!tty pilot.

    1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

      Sh!tty pilot is kinda debatable. He was way in over his head, considering his total hours and time in type. Stupid, defiantly…

      1. avatar Sky2Sail says:

        As I recall the remarks from his instructor his piloting skills were suspect. He lost control on a clear night over water with few ground references in a very high performance single. Maybe you’re both right, stupid and sh*tty…

        1. avatar Craig in IA says:

          “As I recall the remarks from his instructor his piloting skills were suspect.” The same was said of the late John McCain…

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          As a retired military pilot and former instructor, let me just say that a really bad military pilot is still light years ahead of a civilian pilot who does not even have an instrument rating. He was a shitty pilot or he would have realized he needed to stay on the ground that night.

  8. avatar Mad Max says:

    The bill should cover all publicly traded corporations, not just banks.

  9. avatar Waynefromfl says:

    Get woke go broke.

  10. avatar SoBe says:

    What if banks start selecting customers based on race, gender, national origin, etc., is it still ok?

  11. avatar Ranger Rick says:

    I’m liking this guy more everyday, is he originally from Texas?

  12. avatar Coffee Addict says:

    since the federal government’s source of money is the people, regardless of party, I’m ok with the feds telling a business it can’t undermine the rights of those people with their own money.

  13. avatar Jason A Somers says:

    I almost bought some Levis jeans today, but then I slapped myself. I don’t care if your for or against firearms, if you pay $300 for a 3 gallon Coleman knock off you got soft spots in the brain.

  14. avatar Alan says:

    How many co-sponsors, and if none or not many, how come. Who is on whose payroll?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email