Bank of America embraces tyranny by refusing loans to makers of “military-style” weapons
04/12/2018 / By JD Heyes / Comments
Bank of America embraces tyranny by refusing loans to makers of “military-style” weapons

One of Americans’ most important civil and constitutional rights is unique in the world among developed nations: The right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

But gun owners have been under fire for years by those on the Left who seek to limit the right by imposing restrictions and limitations on the kind and type of guns Americans are ‘allowed’ to have, as well as where they can and cannot “bear” their arms.

In recent years, gun makers and gun sellers have also been targeted for extinction, mostly through the imposition of rules and regulations that have made it more difficult to do business. Stores have stopped selling certain types of guns, while the financial industry has begun to adopt policies that cut off services to manufacturers and sellers alike.

The most recent company to adopt such a policy is Bank of America. As reported by The Washington Times, the financial institution says it will no longer lend money to companies that make “military-style” weapons:

The second-biggest U.S. bank announced Tuesday that it would drop current loan-customers Vista Outdoors, Remington and Sturm Ruger, and blackball any other manufacturer of assault weapons.

During an appearance on Bloomberg TV, Bank of America Vice Chairman Anne Finucane said, “it’s not our intent to underwrite or finance military-style firearms.”

“We have had intense conversations over the last few months,” she told Bloomberg, which of course was founded by billionaire Michael Bloomberg, one of the country’s leading gun-control advocates. “And it’s not our intention to finance these military-style firearms for civilian use.”


Well, okay, it’s good that Bank of America will still loan money to makers of real military firearms; for a minute there it appeared as though the financial giant was picking politics over national security.

But wait a minute. Isn’t there a legal question in this decision? Don’t we have a constitutional issue here?

How can Bank of America’s discrimination against gun makers be allowable under the law and the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause when a Christian baker, under the same provision and statutes, can be compelled by the state to offer services to gays and lesbians? (Related: The new “tolerance” – Gay coffee shop owner screams at Christians, threatens to have anal intercourse in front of them.)

Because if the argument in the case of the Christian baker was that private companies open for business cannot discriminate against people who make certain choices, how can Bank of America get away with similar discrimination by refusing its services to a legitimate manufacturer of legal, legitimate products?

As reported by OregonLive:

The Oregon Court of Appeals on Thursday upheld a decision by Oregon’s labor commissioner that forced two Gresham bakers to pay $135,000 to a lesbian couple for whom the bakers refused to make a wedding cake.

Melissa and Aaron Klein made national headlines in 2013 when they refused to bake a cake for Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer, citing their Christian beliefs. The Bowman-Cryers complained to the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, saying they had been refused service because of their sexual orientation.

Now that said, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a separate case involving a Christian baker in Colorado who refused to design and bake a cake for a gay couple in early December and, if one analysis from an observer of the proceedings is correct, the court’s conservatives may rule in favor of the owner, Jack Phillips.  

That ruling would conflict with the Oregon state court ruling — who is right, then?

In one ruling private businesses don’t have the right to ‘discriminate’ while in another, a private business may not arbitrarily discriminate but can make business decisions based on constitutional protections.

Making (and owning) guns is a constitutional protection.

We need to get this resolved before more financial institutions make a mockery of the Second Amendment.

Stay tuned for more on this issue at

J.D. Heyes is also editor-in-chief of The National Sentinel.

Sources include:

Submit a correction >>

Get Our Free Email Newsletter
Get independent news alerts on natural cures, food lab tests, cannabis medicine, science, robotics, drones, privacy and more.
Your privacy is protected. Subscription confirmation required.

Get the world's best independent media newsletter delivered straight to your inbox.

By continuing to browse our site you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.