Beginning with the Obama-Biden administration, financial institutions developed a troubled relationship with the firearms industry. In 2010, NRA-ILA began receiving reports that firearm-related businesses were having difficulties with Bank of America (BoA), although BoA denied there was a corporate policy causing any problems.
Nevertheless, as we reported in 2012, these allegations persisted against BoA, as did the banking giant’s denials of systemic bias. “We do not have a policy that would deny banking services to entities because they are in the firearms industry,” it insisted. “Bank of America has banking relationships with retailers, manufacturers and other related companies.”
Then came the revelation in 2014 that the Obama-Biden administration had implemented Operation Choke Point, an “enforcement” program that threatened to throttle the exercise of Second Amendment rights by pressuring banks to drop business with the firearms industry.
President Trump, in his first term, put an end to Operation Choke Point, but that did not put an end to the anti-gun shenanigans with many big banks.
In 2018, we reported that BoA, along with other financial institutions like Citigroup, had set corporate policies that would require members of the firearms industry to go beyond simply abiding by the many laws regulating their industry if they wished to continue doing business with these financial institutions.
Some of the “safeguards” the banks demanded their customers in the gun industry to implement included not selling certain semi-automatic firearms and standard-capacity magazines, prohibiting the sale of firearms to those aged 18-20, and foregoing an important safety valve provision for unresolved firearm background checks.
As some banks continued to push anti-gun policies, a member of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was reported to have cautioned at least one bank over its efforts to implement gun control the government itself had declined to enact.
This led to anti-gun Democrats lashing out. Not at the banks for trying to usurp legislative prerogatives regarding firearm policy, but at the SEC member for allegedly pointing out that banks should stick to banking rather than social engineering.
We saw Congressional hearings in 2019 that explored what large banking institutions had done since being bailed out during the financial crisis 10 years earlier. Some of the questions at these hearings delved into how these banks worked with the firearms industry. Those that appeared to be trying to force gun makers to implement anti-gun policies were praised by anti-gun lawmakers, while those that were perceived as not using their financial force to attack the Second Amendment were castigated.
After the election of Joe Biden, there was a renewed effort to use the power of the Executive Branch to attack the Second Amendment. While that is a long, separate story, it is no coincidence that, during the Biden-Harris administration, more financial pressure was used to target the Second Amendment and law-abiding gun owners.
There was, of course, the movement to use credit card processing services to try to track the purchase of firearms. Although some credit card companies initially seemed to go along with the idea, most, eventually, decided to pause any implementation of the system. Pro-Second Amendment lawmakers also responded to the threat, and many bills were introduced—both at the federal and state level—to prohibit the practice. At least 20 states have enacted a law designed to protect the privacy of law-abiding gun purchasers who use credit cards to buy their guns.
But in spite of all these problems, there seems to be hope for the Second Amendment when it comes to financial institutions.
National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) Senior Vice President Larry Keane recently wrote an article posted to AmmoLand where he noted one banking giant, JPMorgan Chase, had revised one of its policies that was a clear attack on lawful gunmakers that did not bend the knee to impose restrictions on themselves not required by law.
“There are big changes for the firearm industry when it comes to access to banking services,” Keane wrote. “JPMorgan Chase recently announced the banking giant’s policy of denying services to manufacturers of Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) is over.”
For those not familiar, MSRs is the term some use when discussing certain semi-automatic firearms like the AR-15, which anti-gun extremists try to demonize as so-called “assault weapons.”
With origins traced to Obama’s Operation Choke Point, many banks had decided they would implement internal policies that would restrict access to their services from members of the firearms industry if they did not change the way they ran their businesses. None of the suggested changes had anything to do with complying with the law, or even with fiscal responsibility—the proper domain of banks in structuring their relationships with customers.
No, the practices some banks tried to force onto the gun industry included some of the typical things anti-gun activists demand, such as the previously mentioned prohibitions on manufacturing certain products or allowing for certain sales that are completely legal under existing laws. The threat for non-compliance was that the banks would no longer do businesses with these companies, a practice known as “debanking.”
Accusations of debanking, like the credit card issue covered earlier, got the attention of lawmakers supportive of the Second Amendment, and again led to legislative proposals. President Trump even issued an Executive Order on “politicized or unlawful debanking, and a proposed rule is pending that would help ensure federal agencies were not leveraged for this purpose.
Keane’s article notes the decision by JPMorgan Chase is “a welcome reversal of policy after NSSF met with JPMorgan Chase officials to work to end the discriminatory policy.” It cautions, however, that while the change appears promising, “NSSF … is taking a ‘Trust, but verify’ approach.”
Back in 2021, this financial institution’s CEO, Jamie Dimon, testified to Congress that the company would not finance gun manufacturers that make certain semi-automatic firearms, so if this announcement holds true, it would represent a significant and welcomed change in policy.
We had reported last year that Citigroup had taken a similar first step towards restoring trust with big banks in the eyes of the pro-Second Amendment community. NRA-ILA Executive Director John Commerford noted then, “The NRA welcomes the news that Citigroup has rescinded its discriminatory debanking policies targeting gun manufacturers and dealers. Citigroup and other banks were pressured by left-wing activists to implement these measures in an attempt to restrict the lawful sale of firearms.”
These moves are, of course, long overdue, and we encourage other banks to follow suit. At the same time, NRA-ILA will continue to pursue legislative remedies to ensure the lawful firearms industry is protected from the threat of debanking or other discriminatory actions from financial institutions. Stay tuned for updates.
More Like This From Around The NRA
