Banks Lose $600M

PUBLISHED: 6:55 PM 17 Aug 2018

State Politicians Back Gun Rights, Give Banks $600 Million Lesson

Louisiana's government has opted to back the Constitution, and has denied two banks access to $600 million dollars in doing so.

State politicians backed civil rights groups and constitutional rights over nanny parenting, in a surprising result.

One of the most interesting outcomes from the leftist ‘outrage’ over the shooting in Parkland, Florida, is that certain companies began to feel like it was okay to target those who enjoyed their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Banks and insurance companies joined the bandwagon, suddenly ending their relationship with the National Rifle Association and various businesses that sold weapons.

However in Louisiana, republicans have struck back against companies that decided to push left-wing gun control. The best part is that not only did they stand up for the rights of citizens, but they also made sure that government funds would not support people pushing an agenda that restricts constitutional rights. This meant depriving Bank of America and Citi Bank of $600 million, but the decision wasn’t a surprise to local politicians, who had been planning for quite a while.

Citigroup and Bank of America, two large banks which operate in the United States, were going to be underwriters for a government plan to finance road construction in Louisiana.

That plan would net the banks involved around $600 million, split between them.

However, thanks to Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry and State Treasurer John Schroder, that isn’t going to happen for those two banks in particular.

They were omitted from the financial plan for the road work, as part of what Louisiana Executive Division Press Secretary Ruth Wisher told Breitbart News was the state’s response to corporate gun control.

On March 23, 2018, Citigroup allegedly told stores that they could not sell ‘high capacity’ magazines if they wished to do business with the bank. Of course, what they called ‘high capacity’ magazines are, in fact, standard capacity magazines for AR-15s and other semi-automatic rifles.

Citigroup took things a step further, though, and demanded that any gun store which wanted to do business with them had to refuse to sell long-guns to people between the ages of 18 and 20, even though such people can legally own them.

In other words, Citigroup was attempting to deprive legal adults from being able to purchase rifles and shotguns, the weapons least likely to be used in crimes in the United States.

Bank of America wasn’t any better, however.

According to Reuters, on April 13, 2018, BoA was already working to change their policies in order to end their relationship with customers who “make military-style firearms” for the civilian market.

Of course, the bank did not discern any difference between firearms that look like they were made for military use, and the fact that such firearms are completely different and lack the select-fire properties of their actual military counterparts.

These two banks were attempting to use their financial clout, and the fact that they had a number of businesses that produced or sold firearms as their customers, to bully those businesses into complying with their gun control agenda.

Why the banks feel like they should be using shareholder money, especially so recently after the near-collapse of America’s banking system due to bad securities exchanges, in order to push a leftist agenda, is hard to understand.

Indeed, it is leftists, especially those on the far left, who most often decry and condemn the banking institutions in the United States. Hard to understand why they would willingly align themselves with that same group’s goals.

This isn’t the first time that someone had the idea to use banks to threaten the firearm industry.

During Barack Obama’s time in office, the government initiated a program called Operation Choke Point.

Launched in 2013 as an initiative run by the Eric Holder Department of Justice, Choke Point was allegedly meant to cut down on bad actors in the banking and business world.

In practice, many said that it amounted to little more than targeting businesses that the political left didn’t care for.

On the list were a number of legitimate targets, such as pyramid-type sales and ponzi schemes, high-risk organizations that banks may not want to work with as a general rule.

However, the Obama-era DOJ also targeted groups that they had long railed against, like payday lenders, pawn shops, and, most importantly, both firearms and ammunition dealers and manufacturers.

On May 29, 2014, the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Oversight and Government reform weighed in on that particular practice, condemning it for being a “radical interpretation” of laws passed by Congress which inappropriately forced bankers to act as moral arbiters.

In November, 2014, the former director of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, William Isaac, wrote an opinion piece saying that he thought the entire thing was an example of the agency acting in bad faith.

It seems that since the political left is no longer in power, some corporations are standing up, deciding that they are the moral arbiters for their customers, whether their customers like it or not.

Thankfully, the state of Louisiana has decided it won’t be doing business with these self-appointed ‘nanny banks.’ Hopefully, the leadership at those banks remembers that they’re not expected to pass judgment on legal businesses, but to process payments and hold money.