For over a year, there’s been a kind of economic warfare being waged against the firearm industry. While gun manufacturers and retailers have complied with every law on the books, they’ve still found themselves being cut off from financial services, often without warning. In the process, it’s created all kinds of headaches for these companies.
It’s not just one outfit doing it, either, but a number of companies who have suddenly severed ties with longtime customers.
Luckily, these companies could find alternatives and move forward, though not without some difficulty.
It seems that for some California lawmakers, the problem in this is that they could find alternatives.
California has 109 gun-control laws that restrict how and where guns can be used – more than any other state in the country.
Now, Assemblywoman Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Los Angeles) wants to “encourage” financial institutions to stop lending to gun manufacturers and gun retailers, through Assembly Concurrent Resolution 115. Resolutions are usually trial balloons for future legislation, and do not require the Governor’s signature.
The purpose of Kamlager-Dove’s bill is “to affect the proliferation of guns by urging six nationally chartered banks to curtail their relationships with gun manufacturers. If major banks refuse to extend credit to gun manufacturers, borrowing costs for gun manufacturers would likely increase, which could reduce industry investment in additional capacity or new business lines. Such a result could reduce the proliferation of guns not only in California, but also across state lines,” bill analysis says.
“That is the kinds of conversations we’ve been having,” Kamlager-Dove answered. “This [bill] is saying, let’s have a different conversation, also as it relates to gun violence and gun violence prevention… and talk about the supply side.”
“Kamlager-Dove continued: “You cannot have a gun if the gun has not been made. You cannot sell a gun that has not been made. The reality is there are 400 million guns in this country. So everyone still has an opportunity to at least have one. The other reality is, we live in a free-market society. So, I think it is presumptuous to say, ‘if you cannot go to one lending institution, then your opportunity to manufacturer a gun is shot.’ That’s kind of the incentive to living in a free market, capitalistic society.”
In other words, their goal is to take the Second Amendment out of the equation. You can’t claim your right to keep and bear arms is denied if there are no laws banning you from buying arms, after all. At least, that’s their thinking.
Next, I expect there will be a legislative push to punish banks that don’t toe the anti-gun line in some manner. Expect something to come up that will hurt banks if they aren’t vehemently anti-gun with their policies.
Yet this is problematic for some rather obvious reasons. For one, the idea of the government cracking down on lawful business simply because they don’t like the business goes against everything this country stands for. Regulations are one thing, but this is an attempt to choke off an entire industry simply because some lawmakers find that industry icky.
Which is hilarious since California is also the adult film industry capital of the world. That’s not an issue, apparently, but companies that provide guns so people can exercise one of their civil liberties is?
If I needed another reason to stay out of California, Kamlager-Dove has given me one.