![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/remington-new-mod-44-300x168.png\")
Y’all may remember several years back when Operation Chokepoint came to light. No? To refresh:<\/p>\nY’all may remember several years back when Operation Chokepoint came to light. No? To refresh:<\/p>\n
federal regulators \u2013 including the Department of Justice and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) \u2013 used their authorities to intimidate banks into shunning lawful but politically disfavored industries. Among those industries were firearms and ammunition retailers, many of which lost the access to capital and credit they needed to do business. The chairman of the FDIC at the time was Martin J. Gruenberg.<\/p>\n
The Obama\/Biden administration\u2019s official line on Operation Chokepoint was that it was a legitimate effort directed at suppressing bank fraud and was never meant to interfere with legal industries. Administration officials claimed that to the degree banks were avoiding entire lines of lawful business, they were simply misinterpreting the FDIC\u2019s \u201crisk management\u201d guidance.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Yeah. Misinterpreting. The anti-gun folks love to misinterpret.<\/p>\n
For example, the New York Times published an article entitled, \u201cHow Banks Could Control Gun Sales if Washington Won\u2019t.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat if,\u201d the author asked, \u201cthe finance industry \u2014 credit card companies like Visa, Mastercard, and American Express; credit card processors like First Data; and banks like JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo \u2014 were to effectively set new rules for the sales of guns in America?\u201d He then suggested specific gun control measures the banks could enforce by cutting off customers who didn\u2019t comply, including bans on \u201cassault weapons\u201d and certain magazines and accessories. Though admitting these products were \u201ccompletely legal\u201d under current law, the author insisted that through coordinated action by financial service providers, \u201cthey would be eliminated from virtually every firearms store in America \u2026 .\u201d<\/p>\n
Certain banks did, in fact, take this advice (including Bank of America and Citigroup), adding specific requirements to their relationships with firearm-related customers that exceeded the requirements of state and federal law.<\/p>\n
Then anti-gun Senate Democrats, led by Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Brian Schatz (D-HI) actually sent letters to senior officers of other national banks, applauding Bank of America and Citigroup and urging the other banks to do the same thing. While the letters did not contain any specific promises or threats, the subtext was inherent and obvious: if the banks wanted to be on the good side of the politicians who regulate their industry, discriminating against customers those politicians don\u2019t like is a good way to do it.<\/p>\n
Banking executives have also been hauled up to Capitol Hill for hearings at which they were castigated by anti-gun Democrats for not following the lead of financial institutions that will not serve gun companies unless those companies adopt \u201cbest business practices\u201d promoted by gun control advocates.And, more recently, gun control advocates have even hatched a plan to use a newly created merchant category code for credit card purchases that would allow banks to surveil purchases at gun shops and report what they consider \u201csuspicious activity\u201d to authorities.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Well, guess who Biden has recommended for appointment of the FDIC? Any answer that doesn’t sound like Martin J. Gruenberg doesn’t count.<\/p>\n
The Trump administration\u2019s DOJ formally repudiated and terminated Operation Choke Point. It also fast-tracked a rule through the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency that required covered banks to provide fair access to all the products they offer to law-abiding customers who are able to satisfy predetermined \u201cquantitative, impartial risk-based standards.\u201d Additionally, the rule prohibited the banks from coordinating with others to \u201cdeny \u2026 any person a financial service the covered bank offers.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Biden administration, however, refused to publish the rule, suggesting that it does not, in fact, support fair access to banking services by lawful customers (or at least the ones the administration disfavors).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n