Imagine if a state decided that it was going to start discriminating against businesses that also did business with companies that were part of a certain industry, all because they didn’t like that industry.
It would be pretty messed up, yet that’s what California is basically doing.
A bill seeks to basically force the state to discriminate against any business that works with the gun industry.
Now, the NRA is weighing in on it via America’s 1st Freedom.
A California state senator has introduced anti-Second Amendment legislation that, if enacted, would greatly damage the firearms industry and the Second Amendment for Californians and, perhaps, for other Americans.
In February, S.B. 637 was introduced by state Sen. Dave Min (D). The text of the bill, and its attack on the legal business of manufacturing firearms, speaks for itself. S.B. 637, as introduced, says, “Existing law prohibits certain state trust funds from making or holding investments in business firms or financial institutions that engage in specified discriminatory business practices. This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to subsequently amend this bill to include provisions that would prohibit financial institutions that do business with gun manufacturers from doing business with the state of California.”
In other words, since California law currently prohibits state entities from practicing financial discrimination against legal businesses, Senator Min wants the law amended to allow California state agencies to legally discriminate against financial institutions that do business with gun makers.
A press release from Min’s office explained that such legalized discrimination was needed to “end the gun violence epidemic.”
As Min himself stated in the release, “SB 637 will force Wall Street to make a choice between the blood money offered by the gun industry and doing business with the State of California, sending a clear message and more importantly a strong market signal that the State of California will not, either directly or indirectly, finance gun violence.”
Except that California has some of the most extensive gun control laws in the nation. Those haven’t seemed to do all that much to prevent, say, two mass shootings in the state just days apart.
Why is that?
Well, maybe because the people who are causing all the problems aren’t buying their guns lawfully in the first place. As such, the gun industry can’t really do anything to prevent what’s happening, so why try to push them and the businesses they work with over something that’s outside of their ability to impact?
Then again, this is California.
I can’t help but imagine the outcry if, say, Texas did something like this targeting companies that work with abortion clinics. One could make an argument almost word-for-word like the one being pushed in California, after all, and yet many who would applaud this would lash out at such an effort and we all know it.
People would go nuts.
Look, if California opts to do this, it’s just a matter of time before this lands before the Supreme Court. State governments shouldn’t get the same latitude to decide who to do business with that private entities have because they’re supposed to work to the benefit of the taxpayers. Cutting off businesses because they work with other lawful businesses is anything but that.