Specifically, leftists associated with the International Organization for Standardization’s Registration and Maintenance Management Group met last week to discuss a proposal already adopted by the country's largest payment processor, Visa, to attach a special code to the sale of firearms so they can be tracked under the lie of "public safety."
So, with one proposal, these international leftists have convinced American payment processors to infringe on Americans' Second Amendment rights and their Fourth Amendment right to privacy.
The company claims that the new classification will allow for easier tracking of firearms sales as a means of helping to prevent mass shootings, according to The Associated Press. But of course, gun rights advocates see the move as a huge encroachment on the legal sale of firearms by left-wing activists who, 10 minutes ago, were complaining about a ‘woman’s right to privacy’ having been taken away by the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade.
“The (industry’s) decision to create a firearm-specific code is nothing more than a capitulation to anti-gun politicians and activists bent on eroding the rights of law-abiding Americans one transaction at a time,” said National Rifle Association spokesman Lars Dalseide.
Visa’s decision will allow banks to make decisions with enhanced information on whether they will allow purchases at gun shops on their cards. The move could also cause other corporations like Mastercard and American Express to adopt a similar policy, the AP reported. The payment processing company, however, claimed that it will continue to “protect” the legal selling and purchasing of goods on its network.
“Following ISO’s decision to establish a new merchant category code, Visa will proceed with next steps, while ensuring we protect all legal commerce on the Visa network in accordance with our long-standing rules,” Visa said in a statement.
Amalgamated Bank was the entity to formally propose the code to the ISO.
“Considering the application met all the criteria from ISO 18245 and no material arguments pertaining to the approval criteria outlined in the ISO 18245 standard to reject the code were made, SC9 leadership has approved this MCC application in order to comply with the standard,” the ISO noted per Maria Lazarte, the group's team leader for media and engagement, in a statement to The Center Square.
The decision comes after left-wing Democrats sent letters to the group urging it to adopt the new code, which will create a de facto gun registry -- another violation of Americans' basic rights.
“Labeling gun and ammunition sales is a responsible, common-sense way to help protect Americans, and I thank Amalgamated Bank for their bold leadership on this critical issue,” New York Attorney General Letitia James said. “I urge credit card companies to take the next step and flag suspicious transactions on gun and ammunition sales, like they do for fraud and money laundering.”
What constitutes "suspicious," however, is simply a matter of interpretation. To a far-left Democrat, every gun sale could be labeled "suspicious." What's next -- a political test for gun ownership? Citizenship?
Mark Oliva, the National Rifle Association's managing director for public affairs, blasted the move in a statement to the news outlet, adding that the code is “flawed on its premise."
"Those who believe it will help law enforcement do not provide details on what should be considered suspicious purchases," he noted.
“This decision chills the free exercise of Constitutionally-protected rights and does nothing to assist law enforcement with crime prevention or holding criminals accountable,” he added.
“The Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics consistently shows in their own reporting that 90% of felons convicted of their crimes involving a firearm admit they illegally obtain those guns through theft or trading on the black market. Attaching codes specific to firearm and ammunition purchases casts a dark pall by gun control advocates who are only interested in disarming lawful gun owners," Oliva noted further.
This is unconstitutional on its face and should be challenged in court.