A new legislative proposal in Colorado, SB24-066, is stirring controversy with its intention to introduce Merchant Category Codes (MCCs) specifically for firearm sales. These four-digit identifiers, common in the retail sector to classify the nature of transactions, are at the heart of a debate that extends far beyond their apparent administrative function. While proponents argue that assigning unique MCCs to gun and ammunition retailers could aid in identifying suspicious purchasing patterns, critics are raising alarms over privacy and Second Amendment rights.
At the core of the opposition’s concern is the belief that such a measure veils an attempt to establish a covert registry of gun owners. By mandating payment networks like Visa and Mastercard to apply a distinct code to transactions at firearm retailers, the government would, in effect, gain the ability to monitor legal gun purchases. It also sets the stage for further abuses by the financial industry to decline payments and financing for businesses and individuals buying or selling firearms.
“This effectively creates a backdoor gun registry,” Taylor Rhodes, executive director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, told KDVR Fox 31. He illustrates a scenario where a simple purchase of a shotgun at a store like Cabela’s could become a tracked transaction, a stark departure from when such purchases were categorized under general sporting goods, eluding specific scrutiny.
The pushback from groups like Rocky Mountain Gun Owners underscores a broader apprehension that the legislation could infringe on the privacy of law-abiding citizens who exercise their right to buy firearms. These concerns are not just theoretical; they reflect a growing unease with how data collection and surveillance could be used to compile detailed profiles on gun owners without their consent or, arguably, a legitimate basis.
Supporters of the bill, like Hudson Munoz of Guns Down America, emphasize the potential safety benefits, likening the measure to existing efforts by banks and credit card companies to combat fraud and other illicit activities. By spotting potentially dangerous patterns in firearm purchases, they argue, such codes could prevent crimes before they occur. Yet, this perspective does not fully address the fears of those who see the proposal as a slippery slope toward excessive government oversight and a dilution of constitutional rights.
As the bill progresses through the Senate, with its recent advancement from the Senate Business, Labor & Technology Committee, the debate it has ignited reflects deeper national divisions over gun control and privacy. The resistance from organizations like Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, poised to challenge the bill both legislatively and possibly through litigation, as well as other 2A organizations signals an inevitable contentious path ahead, not just for SB24-066 but for the broader conversation around gun rights and regulatory oversight in America.