Banks Increasingly Back Political Scheme To Track Gun Purchases by Credit Card
Politicians lean on the financial industry to target activities they don’t like.

The first credit card processor to announce plans to track purchases at gun shops is Discover Financial Services. The company hints that its competitors, specifically Visa, MasterCard, and American Express, are on the same schedule to implement a controversial gun-specific merchant category code announced last year. Given that the ideologically charged bank behind the new code has big plans for targeting gun purchases you can expect more fireworks to follow.
"Discover Financial Services, a provider of credit cards, told Reuters it will allow its network to track purchases at gun retailers come April, making it the first among its peers to publicly give a date for moving ahead with the initiative, which is aimed at helping authorities probe gun-related crimes," the news service reports. "Discover's announcement came after the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), which decides on the classification of merchant categories used by payment cards, approved in September the launch of a dedicated code for gun retailers."
Merchant category codes (MCCs) are an IRS-developed scheme for tracking transactions. Behind the push for the gun-specific merchant category code is Amalgamated Bank, which boasts that it "supports sustainable organizations, progressive causes, and social justice." It's basically a political operation that uses its presence in the financial industry to advance political goals, and it joined with Democratic politicians to urge adoption of the new MCC. Why? Because at a time when everything is politicized, an ability to monitor buying and selling is enormously important to those who want to restrict or control whole areas of life.
"We all have to do our part to stop gun violence and it sometimes starts with illegal purchases of guns and ammunition," Priscilla Sims Brown, president and CEO of Amalgamated Bank, gloated when the ISO approved the new category code last September. "The new code will allow us to fully comply with our duty to report suspicious activity and illegal gun sales to authorities without blocking or impeding legal gun sales."
When the code was approved, firearms-specific payment firm GunTab warned that it was a step towards filing government-mandated Suspicious Activity Reports with the authorities on gun purchases.
"Your bank files a Suspicious Activity Report with your name for every day your cash activity exceeds $10k," the company noted. "Anti-gun advocates want to apply this same ambiguous approach toward preventing gun violence."
It didn't take long for advocates of the code to confirm that suspicion.
"Banks are developing technology to identify potential mass shooters, according to a CEO backing the push to get credit-card companies to more closely track gun purchases," Bloomberg reported last November. "'Detection scenarios' are in the works that, if triggered, would prompt banks to file a Suspicious Activity Report to the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Amalgamated Bank Chief Executive Officer Priscilla Sims Brown said at the New York Times DealBook conference Wednesday."
But the code applies to stores that deal in firearms, not just to gun sales. That means ringing up trail cameras or camping gear might land you on the naughty list. Or the purchase might be entirely blocked.
"Credit card companies may be changing how they process gun store sales, but it's still up to banks to allow purchases coming in with that MCC," cautions DirectPayNet, which works with merchants tagged as "high risk"—a category including adult entertainment, dating, and e-cigarettes as well as firearms. "Banks can see what companies are higher risk, extraneous, or essential (especially during a recession). They control what a cardholder can purchase, basically. So the pushback might not be from credit cards or processors, but from banks. The question is, should banks hold that much power over the decisions of individual cardholders?"
If you're Amalgamated Bank the answer is an obvious "yes" since the outfit uses finance as a political tool. But it's hardly alone in weaponizing finance for political purposes as we've seen in the aftermath of the U.S. Justice Department's Operation Choke Point, which leaned on the financial industry to shun payday lenders, adult entertainment, gun dealers, and other politically disfavored enterprises.
"The general outline is the DOJ and bank regulators are putting the screws to banks and other third-party payment processors to refuse banking services to companies and industries that are deemed to pose a 'reputation risk' to the bank," George Mason University law professor Todd Zywicki wrote in 2014. "Most controversially, the list of dubious industries is populated by enterprises that are entirely, or at least generally, legal."
That program to marginalize legal businesses formally ended in 2017. But American Banker reported in 2019 that financial institutions were still pressured to deny services to "politically divisive clients" and that "efforts to use banks as a lever for broader social change are just getting underway."
Inevitably, if one political faction is willing to lean on private industry to implement harassments and restrictions that can't be achieved through the legislative process or aren't permitted by the Constitution, its opponents will enter the battle.
"Credit-card companies could face fines up to $10,000 per violation for tracking firearm and ammunition sales in Florida, under a measure approved Tuesday by a Senate committee," reports the Orlando Weekly. "The Republican-controlled Senate Banking and Insurance Committee voted 7-3 along party lines to approve a bill (SB 214) that would target yet-to-be-enacted plans by some credit-card companies to create a separate 'merchant category code' for sales at firearm businesses."
With Republican majorities in the state's Senate and House, and Gov. Ron DeSantis very comfortable in a world in which everything is political warfare, SB 214 looks likely to pass. Mississippi, Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia may approve similar laws. Then the fight will really begin.
"A Discover spokesperson said following the publication of the story that other payment network companies had already decided to implement the new code in April, and that Discover was following their lead," Reuters added of the credit card industry's adoption of the gun-specific MCC code.
Ultimately, the key to staying out of political conflicts over guns or any other transactions that authoritarians want to restrict is to use payment systems that don't require a third party's approval. Cash is always good. Cryptocurrency, despite its recent tribulations, may ultimately fill this role. Freedom can only survive if we are able to spend our money on things government officials don't like.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"With Republican majorities in the state's Senate and House, and Gov. Ron DeSantis very comfortable in a world in which everything is political warfare, SB 214 looks likely to pass. "
You seem to be a bit confused: Thanks to the left, we already live in a world where everything is political warfare. DeSantis is just fighting back. And in this case, he's on the side of the angels.
By the way, if a gun store decided to start selling groceries as a sideline, I'd probably switch my grocery purchases there, just to defeat this sort of measure.
I think there are laws against republicans fighting back. They are supposed to take the "high road" and acquiesce to everything and all demanded by the left. Otherwise, they are "pouncing", "seizing" or "rallying against" the left's policies and that just cannot be allowed.
The left's policies and dictates are "the correct and just thing to do" while anything by the right is evidence of their fascism. Just ask the media. They will explain it to you.
Almost every article headline I saw after lab leak got officially sanctioned by the govt, was some form of 'Republicans pounce!' rather than 'Democrats dismally wrong and misinformed for years while calling everyone else wrong and misinformed, in the name of their propaganda'
I read the NYT Morning email and came across this:
"The Pew Research Center has conducted a detailed analysis of the electorate and categorized about 8 percent of voters as belonging to the 'progressive left.' This group spans all races, but it's disproportionately white--and upper income...but the progressive left has an outsized impact partly [largely, solely?] because of its strong presence in institutions with political megaphones, like advocacy groups, universities, media organizations, and Hollywood."
Just though you all might like to see this admission from Leonhardt at the NYT, for what it's worth.
[largely, solely?]
Admission? Deflection? Admissflection?
Sure, they’re the largest, longest-running, most oppressive demographic, and the wealthiest demographic, and the demographic that lauds itself as having lying, cheating, and stealing as part of the playbook, and that they’ve been able to, for the better part of a decade, punish their foes with abject impugnity because they compose an ever-increasing bureaucratic state… but really, the "largest/only?" advantage they’ve got is a megaphone.
Small demographic, outsized impact was my point.
Sᴛᴀʀᴛ ᴡᴏʀᴋɪɴɢ ғʀᴏᴍ ʜᴏᴍᴇ! Gʀᴇᴀᴛ ᴊᴏʙ ғᴏʀ sᴛᴜᴅᴇɴᴛs, sᴛᴀʏ-ᴀᴛ-ʜᴏᴍᴇ ᴍᴏᴍs ᴏʀ ᴀɴʏᴏɴᴇ ɴᴇᴇᴅɪɴɢ ᴀɴ ᴇxᴛʀᴀ ɪɴᴄᴏᴍᴇ… Yᴏᴜ ᴏɴʟʏ ɴᴇᴇᴅ ᴀ ᴄᴏᴍᴘᴜᴛᴇʀ ᴀɴᴅ ᴀ ʀᴇʟɪᴀʙʟᴇ ɪɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ ᴄᴏɴɴᴇᴄᴛɪᴏɴ… Mᴀᴋᴇ $80 ʜᴏᴜʀʟʏ ᴀɴᴅ ᴜᴘ ᴛᴏ $13000 ᴀ ᴍᴏɴᴛʜ ʙʏ ғᴏʟʟᴏᴡɪɴɢ ʟɪɴᴋ ᴀᴛ ᴛʜᴇ ʙᴏᴛᴛᴏᴍ ᴀɴᴅ sɪɢɴɪɴɢ ᴜᴘ… Yᴏᴜ ᴄᴀɴ ʜᴀᴠᴇ ʏᴏᴜʀ ғɪʀsᴛ ᴄʜᴇᴄᴋ ʙʏ ᴛʜᴇ ᴇɴᴅ ᴏғ ᴛʜɪs ᴡᴇᴇᴋ:) GOOD LUCK.:)
Just open the link————————————–>>OPEN>> USA JOBS ONLINE
I recently received my 3rd online check for $21,850 which I won by doing a super simple and easy job online. wq300 This online business is amazing and the regular acquisitions that come from it are amazing. Online according to the subtleties referenced on
this site………… http://Www.Smartjob1.com
There's a lot of room in between between acquiescing and stooping to your opponents tactics. You are correct about one thing. Republicans have abandoned the moral high ground.
Ahh. The moral high ground of losing to an expanding ideological political state.
The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing.
Standing down as bad acts occur is an immoral action. Just like the bystanders filming the st Louis execution of a homeless man.
Just like your defense of actions taken by government during covid. Sit down. Acquiesce. Attack those who stand up.
good
The moral high ground belongs to those who want to stop and reverse the growth of the ideological political state, not those who embrace that same state if they get to be in charge of it.
What, exactly, is the "moral high ground" here? When the progressive left has ideological capture over every institution of society- schools, tech, finance, government, entertainment- and uses those institutions to push oppressive policies that are openly hostile to individual liberty, and then censors and supresses any information that counters those policies, what, exactly, is the "moral high ground?" All the normal, civilized tools that conservatives could use to fight them are largely controlled by the progs. Do you really think this is a fair fight at this point?
DeSantis' petty crusade against Disney is a great example.
Much worse than the political cancelation of discussion from public discourse and large corporation capture by activists.
I've said it before, but you'd seemingly love a fascist state.
What DeSantis did was remove an extra legal protection for a favored corporation. You act like he destroyed the company.
A great example of the moral high ground? Because that was the question. What, exactly, *should* republicans be doing to combat the ideological capture of both public and private institutions, and the government's use of its regulatory authority to push anti-freedom agendas?
They should be working to limit government power. Instead, they're just trying to seize that power for themselves. Personally, I don't see any appeal to handing either leftards or right wingnuts more control over my life.
Characterizing pushback against woke supermegacorp Disney peddling influence way outside their wheelhouse as a petty crusade?
Additional proof that Sarc would never take a side. The man is the pinnacle of non-partisanship.
I try to be tolerant of other opinions unless and until they descend into ignorance with arrant nonsense and therefore become braying. Sarcasmic finally brayed once to often, and is now on mute.
No, they have not lost the moral high ground. They are fighting literal fascists.
They've not only lost any moral high ground they ever had, they're rushing to throw it away. If your approach to "fighting literal fascists" is to impose your own preferred flavor of fascism, you're definitely doing something wrong.
It's like tolerating a crazy wife, who by custom can do all sorts of insane things, even physical violence, but can't be the "victim" of equivalent actions in return.
The best solution is separation and then divorce.
If this new category covers any business that sells guns, anyone who buys anything at Wal-Mart will be flagged as a security risk. Which is pretty much everybody.
I already have that covered. I buy most of my groceries at Meijer (one of the store chains Walmart imitated when they built their superstores), and they've sold guns for a long time.
For we all know that criminals who plan on going on shooting sprees purchase their guns at a firearms store using their own credit card and I.D. Then they go through the required NICS check which will not approve their purchase if they are a prohibited person because the database is always up-to-date and will flag a person that shouldn't be allowed a gun.
The truth is, this will prevent no crimes, but it will allow the credit card companies to gather the information to pass on to the government as to who frequents gun stores. Even if they purchase no guns, the government knows that a person who purchases ammo or sporting equipment is more likely to be conservative and this is a great way to keep track of such people. I guess they will soon require book stores to track people's choices in reading material as well.
Florida has the right of it. More states should pass laws making such tracking a criminal act and fine stores for each such incident.
And about as effective, at stopping crime, as a "gun free zone."
But very effective at targeting non criminals and knowing what they are doing, buying, and where.
Which of course is the whole point; identify and marginalize.
The mass shooters that work for/with the FBI do
This is super fucked.
But in what world does DeSantis deserve a quip here? Shit like this new tracking, which is specifically done as a political move, is exactly why DeSantis is here. If they wouldn’t do this kind of shit, you’d barely know that DeSantis existed.
Covid bullshit? DeSantis.
Disney deciding to stick its nose where it ought not? DeSantis.
Tracking gun purchases? DeSantis.
Everything DeSantis has done has been in reaction to crazy liberal shit, yet somehow he’s the political warfare agent.
Do not worry...Reason does not take sides.
Not siding with Republicans is the same as siding with Democrats.
Attacking those standing up to an expanding state while ignoring authoritarian overreach dressed in good intentions you mean.
I don't oppose DeSantis' position in this particular case, but using the power of the state to attack a private company explicitly for [gasp!] exercising its free speech rights is hard to square with libertarianism.
They didn't single out literally any other governor. It's not like Newsom is not a potential candidate for the President.
It's DeSantis Derangement Syndrome (DSDS). He's taking the place from Trump as the progressive (I'll never call those illiberal twits, "liberal") authoritarian left seems to genuinely fear the man.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I am now making over $15k every month just by doing an easy kkt j0b 0nline! I KNOW YOU NOW MAKIG MORE DOLLARS online from $28 k I,TS EASY ONLINE WORKING JOBS…
Just copy and paste.............................>> https://www.join.hiring9.com
Please explain who Mike is, what is great about his article, and why you appreciate it so much. No Power Points allowed.
Pay cash, problem solved.
I suspect their next regulation will be to require that all gun store purchases must be made by credit card (Discover, Visa, or Mastercard only). Any attempt to pay in another method will be criminalized as "evading government oversight of commerce" or something equally stupid.
Got any examples of things you cannot buy with cash, but instead are required to use a credit card? All I can think of is things that you rent, like cars and rooms.
Are you aware of the crime of structuring?
Trivially, anything that costs over $10K.
What does that have to do with requiring firearm purchases to be done with a credit card, which is what I was responding to?
Credit card purchases over $10K get reported. If you buy something over $10K with cash, doing so can be prosecuted as “structuring”, on the assumption that you used cash to prevent the transaction from being reported. Even a series of transactions to the same end that add up to $10K can result in that.
Had to read up on structuring when I was acting as executor of my sister's estate, to make sure I didn't accidentally do it.
I don't think that would apply very often being that you can get a new Glock for $600.
They can change what the requirements are for structuring charges easily enough.
And if somebody opposes it, they are just engaging in a culture war.
Didn't claim it would be common, just pointing out an answer to your question: "Anything over $10K".
And, yes, as Damikesc says, it would not be hard for them to reduce the threshold for "structuring" to force all firearms purchases through the recording system.
And now we're moving the goalposts. Whatevs.
Brett's not moving the goalposts here.
I say $10K is an unlikely sale, thus most people won't run afoul of "structuring." He says "Well they can always change the rules, therefore I'm right." That's literally picking up the goalposts, taking a short walk, and putting them back into the ground.
Sarc believes in the good intentions of government.
Who committed a logical fallacy? Let's watch the replay...
Sarc introduces a non-sequitur that trivializes a discussion. Brett's gives a response directly related to the discussion without changing any parameters. Sarc then limits his first argument after the fact so that Brett's no longer applies. Classic goalpost shifting. But, he is not finished. When another point is introduced, Sarc restates what he wrote previously with completely different phrasing to create the illusion that his position was the one being trivialized. Motte and Bailey, FTW.
That’s literally picking up the goalposts,
No, as demonstrated, it is not even figuratively that.
Dissemble, deflect, distract.
CindyF: "I suspect their next regulation will be to require that all gun store purchases must be made by credit card" [= cannot buy with cash]
Sarc: "Got any examples of things you cannot buy with cash?" [The question was hardly a non sequitur--it directly responded to the assertion made--and the answer would have been highly relevant to the question of whether guns are indeed "next".]
Brett: Have you ever heard of structuring? [= a crime which has generally has nothing to do with purchasing things with cash--at least, unless those "things" are money orders, which are themselves financial instruments.]
Sarc: WTF?
Brett: Goes on about structuring, completely missing the fact that it's not about purchasing things with cash...but introduces the $10k threshold for the first time. [That was a non sequitur, by the way.]
Sarc: Unadvisedly responds to Brett's non sequitur: $10k is meaningless when we're talking about gun purchases for $600.
Damik/Brett: They could always change the threshold for structuring, or make it apply to [gun purchases] of any amount. [Or make it a crime to buy guns in the first place, I suppose. Just depends on where you want to plant the goalposts next...]
Sarc: "And now we’re moving the goalposts. Whatevs." [It's probably clear by now that no one has any examples of the government banning the use of cash for purchases of other things similar to guns, leaving CinfyF's ardent speculation gently undulating in the breeze.]
ChuckP: Here, let me gaslight that for you.
ChuckP: Here, let me gaslight that for you.
My analysis is only gaslighting if Sarc's response was a legitimate question and not his usual attempt to deflect the conversation away from the discussion.
I suspect their next regulation will be to require that all gun store purchases must be made by credit card...
Got any examples of things you cannot buy with cash, but instead are required to use a credit card?
So, an argument was proposed that once gun store purchases on credit cards are classified for reporting purposes that those purchases will then be required to be made by credit card, so that all gun purchases will be captured in the reporting. No evidence exists that this will happen, making it a slippery slope argument, but this is a libertarian website.
The response questioning what currently can't be purchased with cash lacks both context and relevance. There does not currently exist any transaction cannot be made with cash as long as the vendor has a physical location and chooses to accept cash payments. Both the items mentioned, car and room rentals, can and are frequently paid for in cash. What was the point of it? Did it deflect the conversation?
Brett then made a relevant follow up that making cash payments can be investigated as a crime at which point Sarc accused him falsely of moving goalposts and misused the word "literally" in any of its meanings.
Not gaslighting.
Best way to stop this is the next time a Republican becomes POTUS very publicly announce that abortion clinics will get their own code
There's nothing specific or federal saying you have to rent a car or a hotel room with a credit card, it's more about the convenience of breaking up the transaction and structuring the payment.
Yes, that is structuring. Simply choosing to purchase something with cash is not structuring.
If you do rent a car or a hotel room with cash, they will usually require some sort of proof of identity as well so that they can track you down if you damage their property.
That could be an issue with a high end/ high cost weapon, like a Barret 50 BMG, or a fancy Italian trap gun.
Nah, they'll just get rid of cash altogether. They've been threatening to switch to a "cashless society" for years now. Once they get rid of cash then the government will be able to track literally everything you purchase.
^ This
Cash = Liberty
“They” have practically done this already. I suppose things might be different in the US, but where I live and travel cash is only rarely used anymore. Some businesses are already “cash-free”, meaning you do not have the option of paying with cash at all.
The government did not force this, by the way--but I'm sure they're quite pleased about it!
They didn't openly force it. Don't be so sure they didn't force it behind the curtains.
IIRC, only about 20% of merchant transactions are now in cash. People did this to themselves in the name of "convenience", while I stood on the sidelines and predicted exactly this sort of thing (a computerized monetary system that could be used to make anyone a pauper with the punch of a button).
Nothing frosts me more than having to wait in line while dweeb after dweeb use their ATM card to pay for some trivial item rather than having a few coins or bills in their pocket.
The sad truth is that paying with cash is usually slower than using a CC. Even if you have exact change peeps who run cash registers often lack the mental ability to grasp that fact and don't even get me started on what happens if they have to make change.
Don't worry, CBDCs are on the way to replace cash. The Eye of Sauron is watching developments in Mordor with eager anticipation.
De facto gun registration at the point of sale.
Just like every corporatist action taken by the left from covid, to banking, to ESG.
Not really. The code tracks the vendor, not the purchase. I don't see how they could tell the difference between purchasing a firearm, an optic, or a mess of ammo.
True, for now. The next step, obviously, is pressuring stores that deal in firearms and non-firearms products, (Cabella's, for instance.) to separately report the firearms purchases with the appropriate codes.
The code would likely apply to the firearms department, not specifically to firearms.
Like that makes a difference. We are talking about a government who will steal your money in the name of asset forfeiture. Just has to be the ballpark, not even the game.
Since the goal is to identify people who are gun owners, rather than to register specific arms, that hardly matters.
I thought we were talking about a gun registry. And like I already said it wouldn't be limited to firearm purchase. For example you don't own any guns but your buddy invited to take you shooting, and not being an asshole you buy a couple boxes of ammo to take with you. You're on the list, but you're not a gun owner.
Not necessarily. They'll probably handle it like taxes and report based upon the item. You do realize that different items are taxed different ways even if they are in the same department, right next to each other? Illinois (as an example) plays this game with groceries. If you buy the chocolate bar, you get taxed at the regular sales tax rate. If you buy the donut right next to it, you get taxed at the grocery rate. Both have a shitload of sugar, but one is considered "candy" and the other "food". I can see stores having to do the same with firearms purchases, separating them out.
Do you have a credit card? Mine will break down spending into different categories like groceries, gas, entertainment, eating out and such. This will just be another category.
Toys?
Tools?
Pest control?
Why is Reason promoting a culture war? We have been told here, as recently as the last article, pushing back against left over reach through corporations is a culture war.
Define "pushing back". If you do so by employing the power of the state against private citizens' choices, you are unambiguously waging a culture war.
So the left is waging a culture war. Got it.
Yes, you got it.
But I fear you have nevertheless missed the point.
Absurd! Guns are innocuous; especially AR15's.
In 2019, there were 365 murders by rifle, if all had been perpetrated with one, of the 20 million AR15's Atlantic magazine estimates are in the U.S., then only three-hundred thousandths of one percent of all AR'15s were involved
Correct; but he who yells the loudest, whatever the veracity, wins. After all, "numerous studies show..." is good enough for at least 80% of the electorate.
I remember a Peanuts cartoon from years ago, where Lucy was explaining to Linus "If you can't be right, be wrong at the top of your voice".
That is a better banner than "Democracy Dies in Darkness!"
The motto of one of the newspapers creating the darkness.
"Freedom can only survive if we are able to spend our money on things government officials don't like."
So true, and who can forget the Dems claim in PPACA (Obamacare) that they control our economic decisions?
From PPACA:
EFFECTS ON THE NATIONAL ECONOMY AND INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.—The effects described in this paragraph are the following:
(A) The requirement regulates activity that is commercial and economic in nature: economic and financial decisions about how and when health care is paid for, and when health insurance is purchased
Judge Gladys Kessler (Mead v. Holder):
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Congress had a rational basis for its conclusion that the aggregate of individual decisions not to purchase health insurance substantially affects the national health insurance market. Consequently, Congress was acting within the bounds of its Commerce Clause power when it enacted § 1501
Justice Ginsberg et al (NFIB):
First, Congress has the power to regulate economic activities “that substantially affect interstate commerce.” Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U. S. 1, 17 (2005). This capacious power extends even to local activities that, viewed in the aggregate, have a substantial impact on interstate commerce. See ibid. See also Wickard, 317 U. S., at 125 (“[E]ven if appellee’s activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.”
(and)
Given these far-reaching effects on interstate commerce, the decision to forgo insurance is hardly inconsequential or equivalent to “doing nothing,” ante, at 20; it is, instead, an economic decision Congress has the authority to address under the Commerce Clause.
Only because of a terrible decision that interpreted “regulate commerce between the states” to mean “regulate any activity that maybe might possibly, even if it can’t be proven to do so, have a tiny little effect on economic activity crossing state lines.”
The point of the Commerce Clause was to prohibit states from engaging in Trump-style trade wars with each other and create a free trade zone, not to allow Congress to regulate literally any and all economic activity.
Wickard v. Filburn; in those days, Roosevelt got pretty much everything he wanted, and to paraphrase Rohm Emanuel, he never let a crisis go to waste.
Ayup. Is there any going back? (To the Constitution.)
Operation Choke Point was just a trial run to see if they could away with it. Obviously they could, so now the real fun begins.
They never really stopped Operation Choke Point, they just became a bit more covert about it.
Try using a credit card to gamble.
(Unless it's a state-sponsored lottery, of course.)
'"We all have to do our part to stop gun violence and it sometimes starts with illegal purchases of guns and ammunition," Priscilla Sims Brown, president and CEO of Amalgamated Bank, gloated when the ISO approved the new category code last September. "The new code will allow us to fully comply with our duty to report suspicious activity and illegal gun sales to authorities without blocking or impeding legal gun sales."'
And by illegal, she means any weapons in the hands of private citizens and subversives (aka private citizens who own guns).
Fuck Priscilla.
How would the bank know it's an illegal sale?
To some Liberals any gun sale is an "illegal" sale.
Especially the progressive one's, whom we are told [by Pew Research] occupy outsized positions of power and influence in the media, Hollywood, and academia; large corporations are certainly dancing to their tune at the risk of being called out for their lack of awareness.
(Psssst. You know, the government can track abortifacients in exactly the same way, so please keep an open mind about pervasive, invasive state surveillance--it can save thousands of innocent lives!)
Self-awareness is generally not a strong suit for leftists.
Maybe we have always been this way, but it seems like 90% of Americans now seek a performative life and crave constant confirmation from their ideological tribe. Some even want negative reactions from their ideological foes. Correct me if I am wrong, but not long ago we judged such behavior as adolescent.
And our political system, economic enterprises, and social institutions have all been more than willing to fulfill our desires. I wonder what's in it for them.
I am now making $19k or more every month from home by doing very simple and easy job online from home. I have received exactly $20845 last month from this home job. Join now this job and start making cash online by
Follow instruction on website Here………….>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
will use the "boating accident" reply I like that one the best.
Crypto may yet find a niche if they keep this up.
"With Republican majorities in the state's Senate and House, and Gov. Ron DeSantis very comfortable in a world in which everything is political warfare,"
Republicans pounce!
The correct course of action obviously is to write an article decrying banks flagging sales of legal products and then do nothing when it's implemented.
And why are those gosh darn republicans turning this into a culture war issue? Isn't that supposed to be bad for America?
Fortunately, I purchased all mine a long time ago.
Unfortunately, even those few were all lost in that boating accident a few years back.
Don't you hate it when that happens?
Ummm...I assumed they were already doing this or that they would be giving the government that information.
The less paper trail, the better. Cash transactions are always recommended when you don't want someone to know what you bought.
“Private companies!”
—Reason
I am now making $19k or more every month from home by doing very simple and easy job online from home. I have received exactly $20845 last month from this home job. Join now this job and start making cash online by
Follow instruction on website Here………….>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
"What's in YOUR wallet?"
A tracking device.
Got to admit it's kind'a funny that the dude in the picture is looking at air rifles, nor firearms.
"Freedom can only survive if we are able to spend our money on things government officials don't like."
Sounds like we have the basis for the 28th Amendment: The Congress shall not infringe on the right of the people to anonymously conduct financial transactions.
Perhaps this should be expanded to special codes for every single little tiny item that can be purchased. This would include tracking a special code for each size and type of paper clip that can be purchased, different types and brands of eggs.
Track all the UPC codes that you want to violate our privacy, but the attempt to categorize and vilify a group of products is an authoritarian power move and deeply evil. A shovel could become a weapon as well as a huge number of products that are innocently purchased daily.
Discover Card is turning the Credit Card into a weapon with the premeditated intent to cause harm to people, items and freedoms that they disagree with. This should be actually be crime as it would not be a victimless.
Discover Card is only a little more than a bit player in the credit card market. Visa and Master Card are the big boys with Visa accounting for around 50%. While the jury is still out it may be that Discover Card is simply virtue signaling to try and increase it's share which is around 3.6% of total dollars spent using CCS.
Owner: Let’s see, that’s one 9mm pistol, 1,000 rounds of 115 gr HP, a 12 GA shotgun, 10 boxes of 000 buck, and 10 feet of 6 lb test monofilament. That’ll be $2,137.87.
Customer: Do you take Discover?
Owner: Sure. Martha! What’s the MCC for boating accident supplies?
In all seriousness, this is really about killing off the small mom & pop gun shops. I can't imagine anyone questioning any transaction at stores like Bass Pro Shops, Kittery Trading Post, or the like. It's a stab at small FFLs to put them out of business and nothing more. A good bet is there's a certain percentage of revenue that deals with firearms and if you're over that number they're really looking to kill you off.
well this did not age well
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/payment-giants-suspend-work-on-code-that-would-track-gun-purchases/ar-AA18pS7R?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=cb2add7dadcc496bab89c89b98906009&ei=40