Will the new Congress pressure financial institutions to discriminate against firearms?

[old lady new shooter]

This article seems to think so. What do folks here think?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/second-amendment-maxine-waters-heads-key-house-committee/

 

[exbrit49]

This article seems to think so. What do folks here think?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/second-amendment-maxine-waters-heads-key-house-committee/

Oh my not again!

 

[Walkalong]

Why their supporters don't think they won't turn on them after they kill off all the primary things they hate first is beyond me. It is the exact reason for the second amendment and check and balances on power in government.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

I think it's too early to tell, but yeah, probably.

 

[GEM]

Want to talk about the issue as compared to general complaints. I'm going to delete all those.
Can the House do this? Will it have impact?
Talk about those.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Well, maybe our resident attorneys can tell us whether Congress can make a LAW to this effect. If not, would their "suggestion" would be enough to seriously harm the industry?

 

[bassjam]

The House can't do much of anything on it's own in regards to laws. They can write letters to companies and ask nicely for them to comply with their "demands", but they have no authority on the matter until both the House and the Senate passes a law and the President signs it.

 

[boom boom]

Not quite, it gives those favoring gun control in the financial industry more ammunition to argue internally that the company needs to be proactive. Even after chokepoint went away, many small businesses in politically and culturally unfavored businesses such as pawnshops and gun stores/mfgs, even ideological bloggers have been dumped by their banks or refused service by credit card processors. Internet storefronts and internet service companies are also getting into the refusal business. I suspect hedge and pension funds along with angel investors are the connecting link putting pressure on the low down.

 

[GAF]

Looks like a future with a lot of cash purchases .

 

[P5 Guy]

Looks like a lot of cash only politicians

 

[Pat Riot]

If Congress passed a bill that the Senate passed as well and the President signed it into law then our recourse would have to be financial impacts that we could impose by not using credit cards.

I am sure that many would boycott but many would grumble and continue using their credit cards and nothing would change.

But then many forget that the banking institutions like controlling their own destinies which includes controlling our politicians. I think this entire concept is sabre rattling to get the base on both sides to donate money for the cause...

 

[CapnMac]

Well, legislators legislate, that's what they do to decreas the constituent complaints about looling in debauchery and petty DC squabbling.

I'm reasonably sure you are not supposed to write federal laws which infringe upon bank and lending institutions' ability to engage in lawful commerce.

"Supposed to" has no slowed some members of Congress from acts of utter idiocy, sadly.

 

[Pat Riot]

Well, legislators legislate, that's what they do to decreas the constituent complaints about looling in debauchery and petty DC squabbling.

I'm reasonably sure you are not supposed to write federal laws which infringe upon bank and lending institutions' ability to engage in lawful commerce.

"Supposed to" has no slowed some members of Congress from acts of utter idiocy, sadly.

Imagine if they placed the same types of restrictions on banks and the press that they have on gun owners...

Me thinks there would be an outcry.

 

[CapnMac]

Me thinks there would be an outcry.

Some smart guys a couple hundred years ago made making laws as complicated as they could figure out how to do, and still work at least some of the time.
House may promote this sort of drivel, but the Senate will probably not bother with any of it. And, any such bill would then have to be signed in the WH. The current gouge from the HIll is that the Senate may actually look at less than 1 in 20 House bills sent over, for being busy with their own knitting.

 

[lemaymiami]

CapnMac has it right... in short - they'll try...

Most of what we're going to see for the next two years from our House of Representatives (at least the majority in power) will fall in two categories... Their primary focus will be to make our president look as bad as possible - the secondary will be to do things that will help THEM get re-elected (whether it impacts on gun rights -or any other hot button topic... will be entirely beside the point....).

Thank heavens for two houses... our founders were pretty darned smart from my viewpoint...

 

[morcey2]

I don't think this has to do with passing laws but harassing companies by constantly calling their execs to testify in front of various committees.

Congresscritter: "Mr. Dimon, why is JP Morgan helping contribute to gun violence in this society by allowing financing for evil gun companies and by not blocking its credit cards from being used to purchase guns?"

Jamie Dimon: "Um. I'm not sure I agree with the premise of your question."

Congresscritter: "So what you're saying is that you're perfectly happy with ghost guns, chainsaw bayonets, the shoulder thing that goes up, and cop-killer bullets in the hands of 3 year olds? Mr. Dimon, I'm appalled at your insensitivity to this issue!"

Frame the questions correctly and it gets carried by the major news sources turning it into a potential PR nightmare for the companies even if the answers are perfectly sane. I think that's what they're hoping to accomplish. Whether it works or not is yet to be seen.

Matt

 

[lemaymiami]

One of my anglers a few years back had a few go-rounds with one or more liberal congressional types... The deal is pretty simple -but not generally understood... All you need is a few congress types in your corner (however you have to do it...) then you can either put your competition (or almost any business, for any reason...) in a very bad way - particularly it they're facing a subpoena from one committee or other... That business, or activity group then has to spend almost a year prepping to appear (as well as going through every single document they will be required to provide..). For a great big corporate entity (use Facebook as an example) they will not suffer much at all from this sort of harassment since they employ substantial resources to deal with records requests, as well as lawyers, PR types, etc. to prep whichever executive will be appearing in front of whatever committee... A relatively small business - say a small consulting firm can be really badly hurt by this sort of stuff since all the time and money spent defending yourself or your policies in front of some committee won't do anything for your bottom line - in fact your competitors will benefit since they don't have any similar drags on time, money, effort...

Once you learn about this sort of stuff (and the tame legislators that are always willing to accept requests from big donors - or just powerful companies....) you begin to understand why companies cave in advance to lower their profiles and make as certain as they can that someone else gets "run up and down the flagpole" - publicly.... This is pretty corrupt in my opinion but there's a reason companies employ a variety of advisors, lobbyists, etc.

Thank heavens I live almost as far south of Washington as possible... Hope I spend the rest of my life staying out of courtrooms, public hearings, and especially Washington.... That "swamp" everyone talks about has been there from the beginning more than 200 years ago - and it will still be there long after our current administration becomes history (hopefully after a second term... ).