It’s the Big Banks vs. Gun Owners [VIDEO]

This Week in Gun Rights is TTAG’s weekly roundup of legal, legislative and other news affecting guns, the gun business and gun owners’ rights. 

Big banks push back against fair access to financial services

Bank of America won't lend to AR makers

There was a rule proposed by the Office of the Comptroller of Currency recently that would prevent big banks from denying entire industry segments from accessing financial services. It’s pretty convoluted, but the Dodd-Frank Act was actually designed, in part, to prevent predatory practices by banks.

Denials of banking services are supposed to be based on individual risk factors, but banks had been denying services to gun businesses, oil and gas companies, and others based on just a general aversion to those segments. The new rule would require denials to be based on actual metrics…and the banks hate this.

Anyone who’s been in the gun business has experienced this frustration. Having your business immediately designated as “high-risk” results in being denied a host of services by the majority of the financial market, with no individual reason.

Especially in the modern climate of de-platforming, and with efforts like Obama era “Operation Chokepoint,” denial of access to financial services is a highly concerning threat to the future of the Second Amendment in this country.

While it’s hard to cheer for any administrative agency doing much of anything, let’s hope this move by the OCC alleviates some stress from the ever-tightening noose on the gun business.

Biden to nominate Merrick Garland as Attorney General

Merrick Garland (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, File)

So now we know that Merrick Garland, the guy Obama claimed was so middle-ground that he was a proper appointment to the Supreme Court, is now the pick for the position of Attorney General. Progressives may still complain about his “moderation,” but as for the Second Amendment, he is anything but.

Garland openly and notoriously criticized interpreting the Second Amendment as an individual right, despite the fact that holding any other way would make the Second Amendment the one and only reference to a “collective right” in our entire Constitution.

It’s clear garland has contempt for the Second Amendment, and his coming nomination and likely confirmation to the office of the Attorney General is surely cause for alarm.

Universal background check law goes into effect in Virginia

Ralph Northam

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (AP Photo/Steve Helber)

Selling a firearm to another person in Virginia without going through a federally anointed gatekeeper of the Second Amendment could now net you a fine of $2,500, or a year in jail. The new law went into effect requiring virtually all firearm sales to be conducted via an FFL, with attendant fees paid.

Universal background checks are a pernicious assault on our rights, especially given the fact that people would have no legal alternative but to use the services of an FFL. We’ve seen this cause prices to rise for transfers in other jurisdictions where these laws are imposed. This is another policy that will serve only to annoy gun owners, harm the working class, and pose no countervailing benefit to our safety.

Kyle Rittenhouse pleads not guilty to shooting charges

Kyle rittenhouse kenosha shooting

Kyle Rittenhouse (AP Photo/Nam Y. Huh, Pool)

Arguing that he acted in self-defense, Kyle Rittenhouse has pled not guilty to all charges against him in connection with the August shooting in Kenosha, Wisconsin. His lawyers argue that he was in fear for his life and that he attempted to surrender to a Kenosha police officer, but was told to go home.

This is not unexpected. The fight for Rittenhouse’s defense will now hinge on whether he had “clean hands” all the way to the beginning of the encounter. As in most instances, someone who had “unclean hands,” or who arguably acquired the situation necessitating deadly force, can be stopped from successfully arguing self-defense. Stay tuned.

comments

  1. avatar GS650G says:

    At least Mr Garland isn’t on the court for life.

    1. avatar Dude says:

      Garland is too tame for them. They had to give Garland the AG position so they could avoid the questions about how Garland is suddenly not good enough for a SC nomination. They’ll be nominating a young radical for that position as soon as Breyer steps down.

      1. avatar Fred says:

        What makes you think they’ll wait for a vacancy. They openly talk about packing the Court by adding 5 or more new seats which Joe will cheerfully fill.

    2. avatar MADDMAXX says:

      At least Mr Garland isn’t on the court for life

      YET… Could be the first “EXPANSION” Justice

    3. avatar Anymouse says:

      Keep in mind that the AG, not Treasury Secretary, is now in charge of the BATFE.

  2. avatar Prndll says:

    Legal tender for all debts public and private

    Otherwise, what’s the point?

  3. avatar Arc - the annoying one says:

    Machinists will probably appreciate being paid in gold, silver, BTC, or useful goods.

  4. avatar NTexas says:

    40 YEARS AGO , NOW 71 , I QUIT SELLS TO INDIVIDUALS , YEP NO MORE SHOULD ONE STAND ON THE CORNER AND TRY SELL WEAPONS , TRUTH IS YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE
    WHO YOU SELL TO . BACK GROUND CHECKS ARE GOOD FOR US ALL .

    1. avatar Debbie W. says:

      Tex…In cyberland using all Caps is considered SHOUTING. You are hurting my ears.

      1. avatar MADDMAXX says:

        Must be from Odessa (the Asian/aka Russian version)…. No schprekky the good inglish… punctuationally (probably not a word) challenged as well..

      2. avatar Southern Cross says:

        Still learning Engrish at St Petersburg Polytechnic.

        1. avatar Piotr the so-so says:

          It does have a certain flavor. Say “djevuska” so we can tell if you’re a Moscovite or just another kulak.

    2. avatar Sheeple Suck says:

      Background checks are already required by federal law when purchasing a firearm at your local firearm shop. Ever heard of the NICS system? Either way, criminals still manufacture, sell, and run guns regardless of the current laws and always will even if every gun law imaginable is passed and enforced. Quit believing all of the lies Mike Bloomberg puts out there through Everytown for Civilian Disarmament and Karens Demand Action. Get your head checked, nanny stater.

      1. avatar StLPro2A says:

        A politician with a law never stops a bad guy with a gun.
        He merely controls the good guys, which is his true agenda.
        The bad guys are merely the politician’s Useful Idiots to justify his agenda.

      2. avatar MADDMAXX says:

        The NEW and (IMPROVED?) Virginia Background Check law went into effect today…..

        1. avatar GS650G says:

          Va went from being a 2A paradise to being barely better than M.D..
          When they are through with VA it will be NJ.

      3. avatar Roger J says:

        I will sell a firearm to an unknown person only if they can produce a concealed carry permit. That’s my background check.

      1. avatar Montana Actual says:

        Is a bot.

        Or a bot in human skin.

        1. avatar Southern Cross says:

          Meat puppet.

    3. avatar DJ says:

      NTexas so you make all the decisions for some 340 million people.

      Jackass

    4. avatar NJ2AZ says:

      what if i want to sell to my friend who already owns guns? Or we both already own guns and want to swap? There is no utility in making us go through BGCs, and certainly jailing us if we don’t is not righteous.

      1. avatar PMinFl says:

        What they don’t know won’t hurt them.

    5. avatar hal_greaves says:

      Can we deplatform this idiot already? Let’s see how he likes that.

    6. avatar Hunter427 says:

      So changing whatever price the government set to give to sell my firearms is good witb you. Not me Tex, are you even from Texas. They want to get you coming and going. You must love big government. Fake tex

  5. avatar Debbie W. says:

    The White House will be full of Jim Crow Gun Control nazis and other domestic enemies soon. The same kind of Gun Control nazis like chuckle schumer who more than likely played a part in the raid in Waco that resulted in men, women and children being burned alive in what was their home. All because sicko democRats needed a photo op to advance the pervert/rapist bill clintoon’s gun control filth.
    One thing I can say about chuckle…In two weeks that ratbassturd has said more on tv to advance his insanity than bitch mcconnell has said on the behalf of the POTUS and the protecting the rights of American people in 4 years. Time for mitch and the rest of the romney RINOs to go.

    1. avatar MADDMAXX says:

      schumer who more than likely played a part in the raid in Waco that resulted in men, women and children being burned alive in what was their home.

      No, his role in THAT shitshow was on the committee with “Creepy Uncle” Joe “Beijing” Biden that covered everything up and exonerated the agents that actually participated….

  6. avatar John in FL says:

    Had this issue myself recently.

  7. avatar Mark N. says:

    Whatever his 2A animus, he is still bound by the Heller holding that the 2A protects an individual right. Assuming he is the legal scholar he is purported to be, he knows it too. He doesn’t have to agree with it.

    1. avatar Gordon in MO says:

      Democrats (communist party USA) will ignore the constitution and SCOTUS rulings already, what makes you think the AG to be will obey written law?.

  8. avatar Shire-man says:

    Cant use their money. Cant use their telcoms. Cant operate your business.
    It’s like they want half the country to secede.
    So why do they piss and moan “extremist!” when somebody brings it up?

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      Secession is a fantasy and they know it. Everyone should know it. Even Scalia commented on this.

      See also Texas v. White (1869).

      Look at the language they’re using now. There will be no secession and any talk of that will put you in the “insurrectionist” category instantaneously.

      I’ve said this here more than I’d like to think: We either talk this out or we fight it out. Those are the only options available. There will not be an “amicable divorce”.

      Given that this is obvious, ask yourself the question that everyone keeps asking as if the answer would change or matter; “Why do they keep poking the bear?”.

      Because, fundamentally, they believe that “the bear” will simply roll over and take it rather than actually fight back.

      They think that, and probably not incorrectly, because the vast, vast, vast majority of Americans including Conservatives have way the fuck too much to lose in open conflict and, quite frankly, are mostly too soft to consider it once they realize what it actually means. Those that run their mouths about it (that is not to include those who speak academically about it or suggest that it’s rapidly becoming one of the few options remaining, I’m referring strictly to those that refer to it as if it’s something to look forward to and will be a cakewalk) clearly haven’t thought through what would necessarily follow from the opening of such hostilities. It’s hubris writ large on both sides when it comes to that kind of talk.

      And you know this is true. The BoogBois went out and fucked around in the streets this summer and… suddenly got real fuckin’ quiet, didn’t they? Gosh, I wonder why. Maybe because all of a sudden it’s not cool Hawaiian print holsters and message board bluster?

      1. avatar Mercury says:

        The majority opinion in Texas v White is riddled with contradictions. Chief among them, that a state government could be appointed by the President because the last elected government seceded and therefore no longer enjoyed the rights derived from statehood; but also at the same time that the state never seceded because states can’t secede because the Preamble uses the word “perfect.” Of course that would mean the 1845 Texas Constitution remains in force as well. Really, if you go read the opinion, it reads just like a WaPoo op-ed rather than a logical argument about constitutional law.

        Frankly I don’t see, constitutionally speaking, why Congress can’t vote to kick entire states out of the union (emphasis on entire, as splitting one would require ratification.) Certainly then they can simply choose not to invade a foreign nation that has recently withdrawn from it. They wouldn’t, not unless they were already collapsing from the inside and outright lacked the capability, but that’s a different question altogether. Texas v. White is a non-argument — a string of contradictory opinons meant to make a premise look like a conclusion. I’ve never heard a single other reason why exit from the union, even when unilateral on either body’s part, is in any way prohibited by the Constitution.

        1. avatar Prndll says:

          The word “perfect” is too subjective and could easily mean any of a million things. If a state cannot secede because of that word then no state can be added because of it either. What is perfect? IF that is a real interpretation then it becomes something for high paid lawyers to hash out. But then, that is just as crazy as anything else we see.

  9. avatar Grumpy 49 says:

    Funny how the same people who are against the Second Amendment are now willing to openly go against the First Amendment. Seems that they are also the same people are of the opinion that they are “superior” to us common folks. Remember that the major “Mass Shooters” have all been Democrats. Who remembers the name of the Republican Judge that was the main target and that Giffords was hit as a secondary target after the Judge was killed???

    Note that the Kenosha DA is not charging the felons who were carrying guns. Videos that show Rittenhouse being shot at and hit with a skateboard BEFORE he fired are disappearing from the internet.

  10. avatar strych9 says:

    Expect more of the same across a host of fronts.

    “Expect to self-rescue. No one is coming”.

  11. avatar Jim Wildrick Jr says:

    Any one that remembers Obamas scheme called operation choke point will remember his administration tried to intimidate the large banks into refusing business loans to any gun store or manufacturing business involving selling or manufacturing of firearms.Fortuneatly it was fought back and defeated.But a new threat now arises as China Joe has selected Merrick Garland as Attorney General.This is one of the most anti gun persons on the planet.Look for this creep to come up with new ideas on how to restrict our right to self defense.He is bad news for the gun community for sure.

  12. avatar Hannibal says:

    The banks issue is one that I’m happy to see noted here… although unfortunately the comment period has passed and it’s one of those issues that both parties are paid very well to ignore. You can get your own website. You can make your own hosting suite. You can even buy a bunch of servers. But you can’t just make your own bank, because the federal government won’t let you. So if someone wants to shut you down they can just make sure the banks won’t deal with you. No banks, no reasonably online payment processing (unless you use bitcoin etc). No payment and you’re going to have trouble keeping those servers running.

    Garland? Whatever. It’s a political appointment and I’m not sure he can be any worse than Holder. Although he might be a little more bitter.

  13. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Georgia voters made a big mistake. But in Virginia they should have voted for the black (conservative) pastor. In Warnock the atheists finally found a “pastor” they could support.

  14. avatar John in AK says:

    Devil’s Advocate and all that, but I assume that most everyone here except for the token Lunatic Fringe Liberals fully supports the right of a private business, such as a cake maker or wedding planner, to decline to serve a particular class of client whom they find morally repugnant to them. We generally agree, I think, that Government should have no ability to compel such a private business to perform an act that they find personally offensive and ethically or morally challenging.

    Given that, how do we come to the conclusion that a private business of a different kind, such as a bank, should be compelled by Government force to do business with a group or industry that they, too, find morally repugnant? Yes, banks are not ‘people,’ but they are comprised of ‘people’ with ethical standards and moral compasses–well, maybe banks are a poor example, but still. . .

    For example, If I were the head of a large bank, I would not wish to do business with Planned Parenthood, or BLM, or the DNC; All three of those groups are ‘legal,’ but all are morally repugnant to me. That being the case, why should my bank, hypothetically speaking, be forced to do business with a firearm manufacturer if I find that form of commerce repugnant? Yes, the firearms manufacturer is ‘legal,’ but I do not approve of many endeavours that are ‘legal’ but may also be morally repugnant to me.

    Where do I err?

    1. avatar RV6Driver says:

      Is it still a private business when you take bailouts and the tax payer that subsidized your bailout doesn’t get paid interest???? This has nothing to do with “baking a cake” This has to do with large scale discrimination for political beliefs…..

      Let’s say these same “private” banks audit credit card history and “red flag” you for an ammo purchase because who needs 1000 rounds….

      Let’s say they send your purchase history from sg ammo or gunbroker to the atf- just to be on the safe side.

      You need to look up the definition of fascism and then ask yourself why symbols of it are plastered all over podium these politicians preach behind…..

      1. avatar John in AK says:

        Then, the question has to be asked: Why CAN’T a bank refuse to do business with you personally if they don’t like your politics, as evidenced by your purchasing history? What’s to stop a private business from declining to do business on anything other than the usual ‘protected-class’ grounds that cannot be used? Where is the legal proscription against discriminating on political grounds?

        For that matter, if you are saying that a bank that takes Government money or rebates or assistance is somehow a branch of Government, then is not every citizen who uses US currency or takes a 23-19 bailout check also beholden to Government, as would be the bank?

        I don’t LIKE any of this; There just does not seem to be any legal means of stopping it, nor do we as the probable victims of UnPersoning have much standing to disagree with it if we uphold the principle that the free market, and freedom of association, are unalienable rights for all and not just those with whom we qgree.

        Welcome to the Brave New World.

    2. avatar Prndll says:

      Banks that deal in ‘private’ proprietary money would not get a negative vote from me. Those that work with federally printed governmental standard issue are a completely different matter. The VISA, Mastercard, and AmEx credit cards that most people have are not based on Bitcoin.

    3. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      Banks have no problem doing business with customers such as police departments and military units that use commercial credit cards to purchase guns and other equipment.

      So it’s not the guns that they are worried about. It’s the fact that civilians are in possession of guns and other weaponry. The banks are taking the position that they don’t support the Second Amendment. The banks don’t support civil rights.

      The banks are simply taking orders from government officials, on who to prove service, and who not to provide services to.

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        BTW
        This is exactly what the Plessy V Ferguson case was about well over 150 years ago. When a private rail car company was told by the government to discriminate against blacks. The rail car company did not want to have separate rail cars for blacks and whites.

        That would cost them too much money. But the government demanded it.

        So we got “separate but equal” because of this terrible case. All based on the fact that the the government demanded racial discrimination.

        1. avatar Southern Cross says:

          Any indication of which government made the order?

        2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          To answer your question.
          DEMOCRATS!!!

      2. avatar John in AK says:

        All of what you say is true; What remains to be answered is whether or not the actions of the banks, and other financial institutions, are ‘legal.’ At this point, it would appear that they ARE ‘legal,’ if not unethical and immoral–both of which terms not being normally applied to ‘business,’ in any case.

        I don’t believe that these institutions are marching to any political party’s orders; They are merely swaying with the winds of power, which for the moment (and the foreseeable future) are blowing from the East. So long as the Left is sat the top of the power/money structure, any big business would be incredibly stupid not to follow along in lockstep, to ensure that they’ll be able to vacuum up the rather large crumbs that the Left is going to leave behind in its path to national domination. As German industrialists did in 1933, American industrialists will do in 2021–and apparently are doing now.

  15. avatar MAGA says:

    I already hated Bank of America before they threw in their lot with the anti gun movement. Their account fees and minimum spending limits are bad enough. If they were a person, they would be in jail.

  16. avatar Alan says:

    The people of Virginia elected their governor and legislators. The now have to live with the aftereffects of their ill considered electoral actions.

  17. avatar Alan says:

    The record all to clearly shows that the harm done by those Big Banks far exceeds the harm, such as it might be, done by law abiding gun owners. Funny thing is that one might wonder as to where the Hue and Cry for punishment of the errant bankers is.

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