Over the years, we’ve seen a significant amount of trouble with the financial industry, at least in regard to the gun industry. Banks and other financial institutions have denied services to various businesses simply because they fell under the auspices of the Second Amendment to some degree.
This has been an attempt at backdoor gun control.
While it seems like things have slowed down since the instigator–former NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo–has fallen from grace, it’s still a threat.
Now, it seems that federal lawmakers have introduced a bill seeking to curb that.
Rep. Jack Bergman (R-Mich.) introduced legislation Tuesday targeting financial institutions’ use of “boardroom gun control” to stifle the Second Amendment.
In a press release sent to Breitbart News, Bergman’s office explained that the legislation, the Firearm Industry Non-Discrimination (FIND) Act, would “prevent any businesses that discriminate against firearm businesses or associations from contracting or subcontracting with the federal government – ensuring that federal funding is not used to further these harmful policies.”
Bergman noted that federal funding is tax-payer funding, then observed:
Taxpayer dollars should not benefit the bottom line of corporations actively working to erode our Second Amendment rights. While the federal government cannot and should not force mandates on the private marketplace, we must ensure we are responsibly spending tax dollars and holding those we do business with to a high standard. I’m proud to be joined by more than fifty of my fellow Members of Congress in introducing this important legislation.
Honestly, this is better than what I feared.
See, if lawmakers start legislating political positions of companies in favor of gun control, it’s not a stretch to see anti-gun lawmakers doing the same against gun companies who champion gun rights.
But this doesn’t change any position of conscience. It simply says that if you can’t do business with gun companies, you won’t get to do business with the United States government.
Which, honestly, is just making them be consistent.
After all, through the Civilian Marksmanship Program, the United States government sells guns. If you’re going to cut off the mom-and-pop gun store down the street, you should probably not want anything to do with Uncle Sam.
The truth of the matter is that these companies took steps that they shouldn’t have.
That said, I’m not sure I’m really cool with this. While I absolutely loathe what these financial industries did and, if I remember correctly, considered the need for a legislative solution, I’m not sure that was right on my part. I don’t like the idea of manipulating companies in this manner.
After all, as I alluded to earlier, how long before the other side does the same thing? Government contracts are big business for many gun companies. What would happen if Congress passed a law requiring companies to only provide 10-round magazines for their semi-auto offerings on the civilian market in order to be considered for government contracts? Or something else.
Every law needs to be considered based on whether or not a similar thing can be done in the opposite direction, and whether you’re fine with that. Sometimes, it’s worth it or even a good thing.
Other times, it’s not.
However, I’m afraid the discussion is moot anyway. There’s no way this bill will get a committee hearing, much less a vote in the current Congress. Pelosi isn’t going to let something like this pass and neither will the current Senate–the filibuster there can work both ways, after all.
Still, just introducing the bill may be enough of a warning to curb the financial industry’s love affair with backdoor gun control. If it can do that, then maybe it does just enough.