Tag Archives: federal gun laws

Reality Check: Major Corporations Influencing Gun Control?

Major institutions across the U.S. are taking a stand in the debate over gun control.

Many gun control advocates believe this is a great move by American corporations. But what does it mean when corporations are punishing customers for behavior that is not illegal? Could these businesses become moral police?

This is a Reality Check you won’t get anywhere else.

In response to the latest mass shooting event in Parkland, Florida, major corporations and banks are now instituting their own gun control policies. Let’s first look at how banks are getting involved.

Bank of America announced just 10 days after the parkland shooting that it would begin conversations with its customers who manufacture guns to, “examine what we can do to help end the tragedy of mass shootings.”

Then in mid-March Citigroup revealed it would institute its own restrictions on gun manufacturer clients. The bank has since banned its business customers from selling guns to anyone under 21, and from selling high-capacity magazines and bump stocks altogether.

And now, Bank of America will no longer lend to gun manufacturers, including current loan customers Vista Outdoors and Remington.

While banks are private institutions, there are questions here about why banks would not lend to companies that are not doing anything illegal, but that the bank’s executives simply don’t agree with.

According to Bank of America’s annual shareholder meeting in April, a shareholder named Justin Danhof, the director of the free enterprise project, asked CEO Brian Moynihan how much business the bank was sending away, noting that Warren Buffett said he wouldn’t make a similar move in his business.

In response, Moynihan said that the choice was in response to those associated with the bank who were impacted by the parkland shooting. Without citing any figures, Moynihan said, “this comes from our teammates saying we have to help.”

Yet Bank of America, the second largest bank in the U.S., has made a unilateral decision that imposes a political view on its employees and shareholders.

Remember, these banks have trillions of dollars in assets. Bank of America alone serves 3 million small business owners in the U.S. and because their policies affect so many people, these banks can sway policy in our country without a single vote cast.

Now, what about the major retailers in the U.S. stepping into the gun control debate?

According to the New York Times, Dick’s Sporting Goods and Walmart, two of the nation’s leading gun sellers, have opted to further restrict customers by raising the age to purchase any firearm to 21.

Dick’s Sporting Goods has removed what it calls assault-style weapons from all of its stores’ shelves.

And Walmart went even further. The retailer will stop selling toy and air guns that resemble assault-style guns.

The actions these major corporations have taken to address gun control highlights the power to punish customers for legal behavior.

But can’t customers vote with their dollar and choose to bank or buy products with a company that highlights their values?

Yes you can vote with your dollar, but it’s very hard when so few corporations are so large and impose their will. And that’s what you need to know.

The problem here is when major, private companies have centralized control. In a free market, corporations should be able to do what they want. If you don’t like it, you support a competitor.

But that’s not the system we have in the U.S.

Instead, it’s a system where cronyism has allowed a few large corporations to have massive control, and there are huge hurdles to anyone trying to create an alternative.

It is why, as I have said before, the decentralization of everything is what is so necessary in virtually every industry. Because it is decentralization that allows freedom.

That’s Reality Check, let’s talk about it right now on Facebook and Twitter.

BREAKING: Idaho governor signs emergency legislation nullifying all future federal gun laws

Follow Michael Lotfi on Facebook and on Twitter.

BOISE, March 21, 2014 – On Thursday, Idaho Governor Butch Otter (R) signed a bill, which would effectively nullify future federal gun laws, by prohibiting state enforcement of any future federal act relating to personal firearms, a firearm accessories or ammunition.

S1332 passed the house by a vote of 68-0 and the senate by a vote of 34-0. Alaska and Kansas have also passed similar laws.

Erich Pratt, Director of Communications for Gun Owners of America, cheered the governor’s action. “By signing this nullification bill into law, Idaho has joined an elite class of states that are telling the feds to ‘get lost’ — especially when it comes to unconstitutional gun control infringements”

Introduced by the State Affairs Committee, the Idaho Federal Firearm, Magazine and Register Ban Enforcement Act, will:

“protect Idaho law enforcement officers from being directed, through federal executive orders, agency orders, statutes, laws, rules, or regulations enacted or promulgated on or after the effective date of this act, to violate their oath of office and Idaho citizens’ rights under Section 11, Article I, of the Constitution of the State of Idaho.”

The legislation continued:

any official, agent or employee of the state of Idaho or a political subdivision thereof who knowingly and willfully orders an official, agent or employee of the state of Idaho or a political subdivision of the state to enforce any executive order, agency order, law, rule or regulation of the United States government as provided in subsection (2) of this section upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition shall, on a first violation, be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) which shall be paid into the general fund of the state…

S1332 also includes an emergency provision meaning it takes effect immediately upon signature.

Tenth Amendment Center national communications director Mike Maharrey considered the legislation a good start. “This is an important first step for Idaho,” he said. “Getting this law passed will ensure that any new plans or executive orders that might be coming our way will not be enforced in Idaho. Then, once this method is established and shown to be effective, legislators can circle back and start doing the same for federal gun control already on the books. SB1332 is an important building block for protecting the 2nd Amendment in Idaho.”

Passage into law represents a giant step forward in protecting the right to keep and bear arms in Idaho. As the law now stands, state and local law enforcement will not cooperate with all future federal firearm laws.

The bill rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce and federal act or program The anti-commandeering doctrine rests primarily on four Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. United States serves as the cornerstone.

Tenth Amendment Center executive director Michael Boldin said that the new Idaho law has opened Pandora’s box even wider.

“People are beginning to realize that this practice is completely constitutional and legal. In the near future, you will see a wave of states passing even broader legislation to fight the federal government on everything ranging from more traditionally liberal issues like hemp and marijuana, to more conservative issues like Obamacare.” Boldin continued, “Nullification isn’t a left vs. right issue. It destroys the fallacy of the left right paradigm and is the remedy for all unconstitutional laws.”

Follow Michael Lotfi on Facebook and on Twitter.

BREAKING: Idaho legislators vote on emergency bill to nullify federal gun laws- Awaits Governor’s signature

BOISE, March 13, 2014–  Wednesday night the Idaho state House passed a bill which would effectively nullify future federal gun laws by prohibiting state enforcement of any future federal act relating to personal firearms, a firearm accessories or ammunition. The vote was 68-0. It previously passed the state Senate by a vote of 34-0, and will now go to the Governor Otter’s desk for a signature.

Introduced by the State Affairs Committee, the Idaho Federal Firearm, Magazine and Register Ban Enforcement Act, or SB1332, would

“protect Idaho law enforcement officers from being directed, through federal executive orders, agency orders, statutes, laws, rules, or regulations enacted or promulgated on or after the effective date of this act, to violate their oath of office and Idaho citizens’ rights under Section 11, Article I, of the Constitution of the State of Idaho.”

The legislation continued:

“any official, agent or employee of the state of Idaho or a political subdivision thereof who knowingly and willfully orders an official, agent or employee of the state of Idaho or a political subdivision of the state to enforce any executive order, agency order, law, rule or regulation of the United States government as provided in subsection (2) of this section upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition shall, on a first violation, be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) which shall be paid into the general fund of the state…”

Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano has suggested that a single state standing down would make new federal gun laws “nearly impossible to enforce” within that state.

James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” also advised this very tactic.  Madison supplied the blueprint for resisting federal power in Federalist 46. He outlined several steps that states can take to effective stop “an unwarrantable measure,” or “even a warrantable measure” of the federal government. Madison called for “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” as a way to successfully thwart federal acts.

SB1332 also includes an emergency provision meaning it takes effect immediately upon passage to the law books.

Notice the “on or after the effective date of this act” clause, because this differentiates SB1332 from other legislation proposed in states such as Arizona and Missouri to resist all federal infringement of the right to bear arms. These bills would end state compliance with all federal firearms laws. The Idaho bill would apply to future acts.

Tenth Amendment Center national communications director Mike Maharrey considered the legislation a good start. “This is an important first step for Idaho,” he said. “Getting this law passed will ensure that any new plans or executive orders that might be coming our way will not be enforced in Idaho. Then, once this method is established and shown to be effective, legislators can circle back and start doing the same for federal gun control already on the books. SB1332 is an important building block for protecting the 2nd Amendment in Idaho.”

Passage of the bill would represent a giant step forward in protecting the right to keep and bear arms in Idaho. As it stands now, state and local law enforcement will cooperate with all future firearms laws.

The bill rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce and federal act or program The anti-commandeering doctrine rests primarily on four Supreme Court cases cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. US serves as the cornerstone.

“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”

Idaho has a chance to succeed where it did not last year, in limiting the feds’ ability to grab guns.

Follow Michael Lotfi on Facebook and on Twitter.