Corporate Gun Control?

A place for sharing news stories related to armed citizens, law enforcement & 2A/CCW topics.

Please note that when linking to an article you must cite the source URL and provide no more than a brief preview of the article to ensure fair-use standards are met.

NO DOCUMENT DUMPING.

Posts in violation of these rules are subject to immediate deletion without warning.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

Post Reply
gilly32
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 780
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 6:38 am
Location: Medina

Corporate Gun Control?

Post by gilly32 »

This movement seems to have the potential to be a problem...
But another threat looms, one that can stretch across the entire American landscape, is immune to the filibuster, and is largely sheltered from judicial review.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/ ... un-rights/
"The right to keep and bear arms is rooted in both self-defense and insurance against government’s propensity toward tyranny. The right pre-existed the Constitution. Thus, the Second Amendment is not its source. The right to keep and bear arms is natural and inalienable; the Second Amendment protects it, and Congress has no legitimate power to restrict it." - Senator John Cornyn (R., Tex.), as reported in the National Review on July 4, 2016

Burma Shave
User avatar
Bruenor
Posts: 7306
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 3:03 pm
Location: Geneva, OH

Re: Corporate Gun Control?

Post by Bruenor »

Hate to say we need a federal regulation that says it's illegal to restrict commerce of items related to a constitutional right, but not sure how else you can actually combat these actions.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/banks-card ... 1525080600" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Banks and credit card companies are discussing ways to identify purchases of guns in their payment systems, a move that could be a prelude to restricting such transactions. The financial companies have explored creating a new credit card code for firearms dealers, similar to how they code restaurants or department stores. Another idea would require merchants to share information about specific firearm products consumers are buying. Such data could allow banks to restrict purchases at certain businesses or monitor them.
Μολὼν λαβέ

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."

- Thomas Paine

"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem."

- Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
Mr. Glock
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 8965
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:20 pm
Location: NE Ohio

Re: Corporate Gun Control?

Post by Mr. Glock »

Remember that big bail out in 2007-8? We gun owners were forced to bail out bank fat cats, who now bite thr hand that fed them.

That bail out also pre-empts any of that “private business can do what they want” nonsense. They only exist due to being bailed out by the government, which means the tax payer, so they aren’t true private businesses.
OFCC Patron, GOA, SAF, YouTube 2A Patreon, NRA Benefactor Life & Hot Stove League Member
User avatar
djthomas
Posts: 5961
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am

Re: Corporate Gun Control?

Post by djthomas »

Mr. Glock wrote:Remember that big bail out in 2007-8? We gun owners were forced to bail out bank fat cats, who now bite thr hand that fed them.

That bail out also pre-empts any of that “private business can do what they want” nonsense. They only exist due to being bailed out by the government, which means the tax payer, so they aren’t true private businesses.
Of the banks that are still around all fully repaid their TARP money, with interest. That debt is paid and the taxpayers have been made whole.

If you want to claim some kind of ongoing moral obligation then it's a slippery slope. Does a private citizen who gets federal student loans, GI bill benefits, takes an FHA loan to buy a house, or has their mortgage sold to Fannie or Freddie owe some ongoing duty to the public at large after the loan has been paid off? Of course not.
User avatar
Chuck
OFCC Director
OFCC Director
Posts: 4753
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 7:06 am
Location: Licking County

Re: Corporate Gun Control?

Post by Chuck »

They can make a baker bake a cake though
Ain't activism fun?

"Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. " - George Washington

"I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something.
And because I can not do everything, I will not refuse to do the something I can do.
What I can do, I should do. And what I should do, by the grace of GOD, I will do."
- Edward Everett Hale (descendant of Nathan Hale)
User avatar
Mr. Glock
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 8965
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:20 pm
Location: NE Ohio

Re: Corporate Gun Control?

Post by Mr. Glock »

If I was restricting my comments to just TARP, you'd be correct. But it was just one piece of the puzzle, the public piece. The Fed did an awful lot behind the scenes, and still have a tremendous amount of "Quantitive Easing" purchases on their books. I'm not talking about conspiracy-type stuff, but rather moves they made in the markets (via certain financial houses) to prop up shares/bonds (ask anyone trading bonds back then) and direct debt purchases.

A further point is that a corporation which mismanages their business to the point of insolvency (by way of a crisis created by the banks/financial houses vis CDOs) is not equivalent to a GI Bill or welfare to an individual. I'm not held hostage if you personally fail due to lack of funds, but we were all held hostage in 2007-8 because our elected representatives and their bureaucracy were asleep at the switch.

You also don't have an implicit taxpayer guarantee of solvency, one that was never an actual guarantee but helped Freddie and Fannie way over leverage their business to drive the creation of the CDOs.

I'm rolling well into the Utility argument here. Too big to fail= utility.
OFCC Patron, GOA, SAF, YouTube 2A Patreon, NRA Benefactor Life & Hot Stove League Member
User avatar
catfish86
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 2571
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 12:44 pm

Re: Corporate Gun Control?

Post by catfish86 »

Chuck wrote:They can make a baker bake a cake though
Actually the government ultimately lost that fight at the SCOTUS.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/06/ ... eedom.html
God,
Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can
and the Wisdom to know the difference.

Carrying a gun is a right, not a crime.

Gun control is racist.
User avatar
catfish86
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 2571
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 12:44 pm

Re: Corporate Gun Control?

Post by catfish86 »

As to the original topic of the discussion, this is a very thoughtful article that accurately portrays the danger. It rightly points out that the only solution is a long term effort at infiltrating the corporate culture. Boycotts don't work against monopolies of goods or services people are unwilling/unable to do without.

This would entail both gun rights supporters seeking careers in tech fields as well as recruiting current industry people into shooting activities.
God,
Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can
and the Wisdom to know the difference.

Carrying a gun is a right, not a crime.

Gun control is racist.
bignflnut
Volunteer
Volunteer
Posts: 8135
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Under Naybob Tinfoil Bridge
Contact:

Re: Corporate Gun Control?

Post by bignflnut »

Chuck wrote:They can make a baker bake a cake though
Yeah, there is a double standard and hypocrisy writ large on these actors. Too true.

We, as people who believe in free markets, Constitutional governmental powers and the like, can and should have faith that there will be businesses happy to profit from pro-RKBA transactions. The RKBA economy is strong and it will only take a recognition that there's an oligopoly at this level of the banking industry. There will need to be a group willing to open the market back up so that a few new firms can serve in the RKBA economy.

The elitists will overplay their hand and expose themselves as a Goliath that needs to be toppled. There's no need of new regulation, simply the will to enforce the principles and standards that Make America Great. Eventually, "single issue" orgs will comprehend that if you allow corruption in some area of the market, it will come to impact your "single issue" org and becomes your mortal concern. On the other hand, if you're simply a member of the Swamp, you may enjoy keeping the game alive.
“It’s not that we don’t have enough scoundrels to curse; it’s that we don’t have enough good men to curse them.”–G.K. Chesterton-Illustrated London News, 3-14-1908

Republicans.Hate.You. See2020.

"Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams to Mass Militia 10-11-1798
User avatar
schmieg
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5751
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:11 pm
Location: Madeira, Ohio

Re: Corporate Gun Control?

Post by schmieg »

catfish86 wrote:
Chuck wrote:They can make a baker bake a cake though
Actually the government ultimately lost that fight at the SCOTUS.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/06/ ... eedom.html
Not really, at least not yet. That decision merely stated that the Colorado Commission on Human Rights showed such bias against the baker that it could not render a fair decision. They left the actual question open to future litigation.

Further, the Colorado Commission is going after the baker on another matter now and the baker has filed a federal lawsuit against them. This will be very interesting if it ever is over.

Now back to our regular programming.
-- Mike

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
bignflnut
Volunteer
Volunteer
Posts: 8135
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Under Naybob Tinfoil Bridge
Contact:

Re: Corporate Gun Control?

Post by bignflnut »

Chuck wrote:They can make a baker bake a cake though
Could have been referring to Sweet Cakes by Melissa
The Oregon Supreme Court has declined to consider the case of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, the now-defunct Gresham bakery that refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple in 2013 based on the bakers' religious objections.

Aaron and Melissa Klein had been ordered to pay $135,000 to couple Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer in emotional damages in 2015 after the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries found that the Kleins violated state anti-discrimination law.

The Kleins appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals, which upheld the $135,000 order. The Kleins then appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court, arguing that the state’s high court needed to "determine whether entrepreneurs in Oregon can exercise their freedoms of speech, religious exercise and conscience; and whether due process will protect them against bias and prejudgment by ideologically motivated adjudicators.''

Critics said the Kleins were asking for a "license to discriminate."

The Supreme Court on Thursday turned down the case, offering no explanation.
If you've not watched Free Speech Apocalypse (Language warning, previously titled Stonewall), I highly recommend it. The Sweet Cakes owners discuss their experience.
“It’s not that we don’t have enough scoundrels to curse; it’s that we don’t have enough good men to curse them.”–G.K. Chesterton-Illustrated London News, 3-14-1908

Republicans.Hate.You. See2020.

"Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams to Mass Militia 10-11-1798
Post Reply