GOA and NRA fighting back against banks

On the heels of recent mass shootings, Citi-bank and Bank of America have taken the law into their own hands and are infringing upon the 2nd Amendment rights of their customers in the process.

Weeks ago, Citi-bank stated it would be putting restrictions on businesses that sell guns and Bank of America stated they would stop lending money to gun manufactures. Two pro-gun groups have had enough of the gun hating banks and are fighting back.

From Yahoo:

“Gun Owners of America (GOA), a Washington-based lobby group, has asked lawmakers to add a provision to a draft law rewriting bank rules that it says would prevent “gun-hating banks” from “discriminating” against firearms makers.

Citigroup and Bank of America are threatening our Second-Amendment rights. They do not realize how much more there is to lose than to gain, by their new policies, said GOA’s executive director, Erich Pratt.”

The NRA is also alerting its members and non-members of the actions of each bank in an advertising push. The decision by these banks gets awfully close to anti-discrimination laws. While the debate, about gun control, rages on it’s clear that banks and other companies have decided to take the law into their own hands and could end up losing a lot of business.

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...


  1. GOA & the NRA are virtual criminal conspirancies that many in Congress fear–not least in that they help fund campaigns…
    Years ago the NRA’s website carried an ironic suggestion from me that they should give their junior achievement award posthumously to the Considine (sp?) High School shooters in Colorado.

    The 2nd Amendment was never meant for disaffected and other unbalanced persons to ‘bear arms’
    The NRA originally aimed to train responsible young men to hunt game and enjoy target shooting…not just act as a shill for seemingly irresponible gunmakers…

  2. Seems as though the NRA is taking over laws. I truly believe that the Second Amendment has been completely misinterpreted and I do not believe the founders of our country meant for everyone to own guns. Our lax laws aren’t helping anything. Many other businesses state that they have the right to refuse service. It should be no different for banks. They are not discriminating because of race, religion, or sexual orientation. They do not want to financially support makers and sellers of guns. I do not support the Republican Party and I am not required to provide them with financial support. Banks should have the same option.

  3. Deanna, perhaps if you read it more carefully, you would understand the intent of the 2nd amendment. When it says a well-regulated militia is essential to the security of a free people it is stating that freedom needs to be defended by, if not everyone, then at least a majority of the citizens. You can’t have a well-regulated militia if citizens cannot own firearms equivalent to those carried by the military. Those citizens are defending freedom from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Because of this, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, a right they have regardless of what any law may say and that existed before the Constitution was even written, is not to be infringed by federal law.

  4. @ Jon Crossen: Sir, your ability to research Columbine is astounding. I found it on first try. Re: disaffected persons and 2nd Amendment, I suggest that most of our Revolutionary patriots were “disaffected” with regard to King George’s policies toward the colonies, and that said Amendment did, indeed, mean for them to bear arms. Lastly, re: “irresponible (sic) gunmakers”, don’tcha just hate it when auto-correct doesn’t auto-correct? I sure do. BTW, could you name off three or four irresponsible gunmakers, please?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Replies containing profane language will be blocked by an internal filter. Required fields are marked *