American gun owners have once again been reminded that the ultimate goal of U.S. gun control advocates is firearms bans and confiscation. Since the heinous terrorist attack in Christchurch, New Zealand, American anti-gun politicians, activists, and media outlets have offered their full-throated support for the New Zealand government’s efforts to ban and confiscate firearms from law-abiding gun owners.

On March 21, the New Zealand government issued an order in council that immediately reclassified certain commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms as “military style semi-automatics,” or MSSAs. The order re-defined MSSAs in statute to include the following,

(a) a semi-automatic firearm that is capable of being used in combination with a detachable magazine (other than one designed to hold 0.22-inch or less rimfire cartridges) that is capable of holding more than 5 cartridges:

(b) a semi-automatic firearm that is a shotgun and that is capable of being used in combination with a detachable magazine that is capable of holding more than 5 cartridges.

An accompanying order in council offered regulations requiring licensed dealers to alter their records to reflect the new classifications.

MSSAs are heavily restricted in New Zealand and require a firearms licensee to acquire a difficult to obtain category “E” endorsement in order to own them.

However, this is a temporary measure. In a statement to the public, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern made clear that the orders in council were a “transitional measure until the wider ban takes effect,” and further legislation is still being drafted.

Ardern noted that there will be “a ban on all military style semi-automatics (MSSA) and assault rifles in New Zealand.” Going further, she noted that, “related parts used to convert these guns into MSSAs are also being banned, along with all high-capacity magazines.”

As with Australia’s gun bans, New Zealand’s gun control measures will feature confiscation of currently-owned firearms. Ardern noted that her “cabinet has directed officials to develop a buyback scheme.”

Speaking after Ardern, Police Minister Stuart Nash encouraged gun owners to surrender their firearms. Nash went on to say that, “police are gearing up to enable these weapons to be taken out of circulation, they’ll be supported by the New Zealand Defence Force to enable safe storage, transport, and destruction of assault rifles and MSSAs.” The New Zealand Defence Force is the New Zealand military.

Ardern also explained, “The actions announced today are the first step of the Government’s response. We will continue to develop stronger and more effective licensing rules, storage requirements and penalties for not complying with gun regulations.”

New Zealand’s new gun control measures are military-backed confiscation of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms from law-abiding gun owners.

It is important for all freedom-loving Americans to pay close attention to the figures in this country cheering these radical confiscation policies.

Failed 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton tweeted her support for Ardern’s confiscations measures, stating, “Under @jacindaardern’s leadership, New Zealand has banned assault rifles and military-style semi-automatic weapons just six days after the Christchurch mosque attacks. Public servants didn’t stop at offering thoughts and prayers. They chose to act.” In 2015 Clinton expressed her support for Australia-style gun confiscation.

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) stated via Twitter, “This is what real action to stop gun violence looks like. We must follow New Zealand’s lead, take on the NRA and ban the sale and distribution of assault weapons in the United States.”

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) tweeted out a video of Ardern’s confiscation announcement, adding, “See. It’s not that hard.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) tweeted, “Christchurch happened, and within days New Zealand acted to get weapons of war out of the consumer market. This is what leadership looks like.”

Offering their support, Moms Demand Action, a subsidiary of the Michael Bloomberg gun control conglomerate Everytown for Gun Safety, tweeted out a Nicholas Kristoff New York Times column cheering Ardern’s actions titled, “New Zealand Shows the U.S. What Leadership Looks Like.”

Everytown frontwoman and former corporate media flack Shannon Watts shared her support for Ardern’s confiscation efforts with multiple tweets.

The New York Times issued an editorial in support of New Zealand’s measures. The piece was in line with the paper’s 2015 editorial that advocated gun confiscation.

Gun confiscation, not “common-sense reform,” is the ultimate goal of gun control advocates. This goal existed long before the Christchurch attack. The recent stateside reaction to the New Zealand government’s actions has only served to further reveal this long-held but oft-concealed position. It is up to all gun rights supporters to ensure that everyone is made aware of U.S. anti-gun advocates’ actual objective and to work against all gun control measures that bring the U.S. closer to that target.

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Source: The Daily Caller

Guns and Gear | Contributor

By Sam Hoober, Alien Gear Holsters

Yes, you need to be practicing one-handed shooting. Start reading into police shootings or watch some bodycam footage, look into some civilian-involved defensive shootings and you’ll find that assuming the perfect modified Isosceles, Weaver or Chapman stance doesn’t happen nearly as often as you’d think.

There’s something to be said for training how you’ll shoot and you’ll shoot how you train of course.

Watch enough videos, read enough reports, and what becomes clear is that you may or may not have the opportunity to assume a two-handed shooting stance. Often enough, people are fending an attacker off with one hand. Additionally, it may happen so fast that you may only have enough time to get the gun out with one hand. This is also why it’s good to practice drawing from concealment with only one hand; you may not have a hand free to clear a cover garment.

If anyone wants to get into the caliber war and the “this is why 9mm is better than .45” in the comments, I suppose this is a good time to do it.

With that said, how to get started?

Well, start small and move up, like with anything else.

First, you need the highest, tightest grip possible. A firm grip on the gun leads to good shooting, one-handed and otherwise; grip it as tight as you can. You can grip too hard, though; what you do is take your carry gun and start to squeeze. Pay attention to the sights.

When the sights start to move or shake, that’s too hard. Let off a little until the gun isn’t moving anymore. If you need to, try to strengthen your hands. Use a hand exerciser and/or do more compound lifts. Barbell rows and deadlifts build grip strength (legs and back too!) and are just good for you anyway.

There are a few different techniques for shooting one-handed. Most common is to just straight-arm it. Extend the shooting hand until your elbow is locking out. Align sights, fire and get back on target.

Some people modify it by canting the gun inward. Doing so ostensibly directs the recoil force more into the trunk of the body rather than torquing the wrist, though some find it makes no difference. Just make sure that you can still get a good sight picture.

Another technique is to essentially use half of a Weaver or Chapman stance, just without the support hand. You want your shooting hand to extend as far and straight out as possible while keeping the elbow tucked into the body. You may have to lean into the gun until you find a good sight picture. Again, the theory is to direct recoil into the body as much as possible, combating muzzle rise and so on.

Massad Ayoob has been teaching a one-handed technique for years that he refers to as the
“Shotokan Punch,” similar to the punching technique taught in Shotokan karate. The gun hand goes straight out, fully extended with the elbow locked. You put your strong side foot out, slightly ahead of your weak-side foot, like stepping into the punch. While getting into this stance, tuck your support hand up into your sternum, like you’re cradling a football.

Come to think of it, he should have called it the Heisman because it’s basically like an RB giving a stiff-arm, but one digresses.

This gets you leaning into the gun and presents a bit of counter-balance, which can help mitigate recoil as well.

If you haven’t worked on shooting one-handed before, start slow. Starting out with controlled pairs is a good idea, as you want to build accuracy and recoil control before you start in with the 5 by 5 or the Bill drill. Do some work with the weak hand too, as it also gets neglected.

Click here to get your 1911 Pistol Shopping Guide.

Click here to get The Complete Concealed Carry Training Guide

Sam Hoober is Contributing Editor for AlienGearHolsters.com, a subsidiary of Hayden, ID, based Tedder Industries, where he writes about gun accessories, gun safety, open and concealed carry tips. Click here to visit aliengearholsters.com.

Source: The Daily Caller

A headline in Reason Magazine said it all: “Have Gun, Can’t Travel.”

That’s the plight of New York City “premises licensees” under one of the most bizarre and oppressive gun control laws in the nation.

Now the U.S. Supreme Court has that law in its sights.

In January, the high court agreed to review a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upholding the regulation against a challenge under the Second Amendment and other constitutional provisions. The case is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York.

Should the court resolve the case on Second Amendment grounds, it will be the first time since McDonald v. City of Chicago in 2010 that the Supreme Court applied that provision to a gun control law.

Even many gun control advocates probably don’t expect New York City’s regulation to fare any better before the high court than the handguns bans from Washington, D.C. and Chicago did in 2008 and 2010, respectively. Like those laws, the handgun travel ban is an outlier.

Most of the suspense and speculation instead revolve around whether the court will resolve the case narrowly or establish more generally applicable principles that could broadly be applied to other gun control laws.

But the story of New York City’s defiance of the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court’s renewed interest in reviewing overreaching gun control demonstrate how the steadfast activism of the NRA and our five million members continues to play a vital role in securing our nation’s constitutional legacy.

New York City’s handgun laws are a case study of the strange and often contradictory thinking of the nation’s most fervent gun control advocates.

The system is designed to make obtaining the license necessary to acquire and own handguns as difficult and expensive as possible for the ordinary applicant.

It dates back to the enactment of New York’s Sullivan Act in 1911 when its proponents – including the New York Times – openly promoted it as a way to keep firearms out of the hands of Italian immigrants.

Commenting on what was supposedly the first conviction under the law – of Italian immigrant Marino Rossi, who claimed to be an honest working man carrying a revolver for self-defense – the Times wrote on Sept. 29, 1911:

Judge FOSTER did well in sentencing to one year in Sing Sing MARINO ROSSI, who carried a revolver because, as he said, it was the custom of himself and his hot-headed countrymen to have weapons concealed upon their persons. The Judge’s warning to the Italian community was timely and exemplary.

Consistent with this discriminatory outlook, the law allows licensing officials a wide degree of discretion in determining who possesses the requisite “good moral character” and, in some cases, “proper cause” for a license.

It also provides for different types of licenses, including “premises licenses,” which allow the holder to “have and possess [a handgun] in his dwelling” and “carry licenses,” which bestow some latitude to possess or carry the handgun beyond one’s own residence.

New York City supposedly provides for both types of licenses.

But in reality, the only applicants who can get a New York City carry license are the rich and famous or the especially well-connected. The licensing system has repeatedly spawned corruption scandals and prosecutions over the years.

The best an ordinary New York City resident can realistically hope for is a premises license, yet even that requires a substantial investment of time, money, and self-disclosure.

As of January, the mandatory application fee for a three-year premises license was $340, not counting a separate $88.25 fingerprinting fee.

Applicants must register online with the city and complete a lengthy application form, which includes the uploading of numerous documents. Besides providing information about prior arrests, convictions, summonses, and orders of protection, applicants must disclose employment and residential timelines and any history of “mental/physical conditions and any medications taken in connection therewith.”

Paper applications have been prohibited since January 1, 2018. Low income residents who lack ready access to computer equipment, including digital scanners and high-speed Internet access, are out of luck.

After the online application is completed, the New York Police Department (NYPD) License Division will schedule a date for the applicant to appear in person during business hours to pay the required fees, get fingerprinted, and provide hard copies of the same documents that were already submitted digitally.

Once the application is reviewed by the Licensing Division, the applicant may be required to appear on subsequent occasions to submit additional documentation.

In any case, when the application itself is considered complete, all applicants must appear for an in-person interview with a licensing official.

Applicants can expect a decision from the Licensing Division, according to its website, “[w]ithin approximately six months of receipt of your handgun application, and all required documents/forms.”

Unfortunately, none of these requirements is specifically at issue in the case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Even more unfortunately, most of them have been upheld by lower state and federal courts in New York. They do, however, form the backdrop for the Supreme Court’s deliberations.

For now, the issue before the Supreme Court is the circumstances in which premises licensees can travel with their own firearms.

New York City currently allows them to do so only for specified purposes and only to one of seven approved shooting ranges in the city, which in some cases require advanced written permission from the NYPD. In all cases, the firearms must be unloaded and in a locked container, with any ammunition stored separately.

The plaintiffs in the case, however, wish to travel with their lawfully licensed handguns to ranges outside the city for use in training or competition. One plaintiff wants to be able to take his lawfully licensed handgun back and forth between his New York City residence and his second home in upstate New York.

These are all prohibited by New York City’s rules.

It takes an especially zealous gun control advocate to even think up such ludicrous regulations, much less to argue them all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Indeed, it appears that New York City’s transport ban may be the first and only one of its kind in U.S. history. That does not bode well for the city’s position that it is nevertheless a commonsense measured aimed at promoting public safety.

Even taking the city’s arguments at face value, it appears the real reason for the law is simply to exercise a maniacal level of scrutiny and control over Gotham’s lawful handgun owners.

In its brief urging the Supreme Court not to hear the case, the city noted that it used to have a “target license” that allowed for holders to transport their locked, unloaded guns to NYPD-approved ranges outside New York City. What it discovered, however, was that it was difficult as a practical matter to determine whether licensees who ventured outside the city with their own handguns were actually doing so for NYPD-approved reasons.

Notably, the city did not go so far as to claim there were any violent crimes or other harmful behavior committed by traveling target licensees. City officials instead apparently expect the court to believe that any movement of a licensed handgun that has not been specifically preapproved and documented by the NYPD is inherently dangerous, even if done for innocent reasons.

Thus, premises licensees can only practice at or compete at NYPD-approved shooting ranges within the city itself (and at big city prices). These facilities, in turn, “are required to maintain a roster listing the names and addresses of all persons who have used the range and the date and hour that they used it and to make those records available for inspection by NYPD during their hours of operation.” This underscores that owning a gun in New York City is a bureaucratically administered privilege, not a fundamental right.

For nearly 10 years, lower courts have upheld almost every sort of gun control law imaginable, while the Supreme Court has not taken up another Second Amendment case.

Thanks to the work of NRA members like you, President Donald Trump has appointed two justices to the high court who take the Constitution’s original meaning seriously.

Time will tell, but that will hopefully mean the Supreme Court is finally poised to accord our right to keep and bear arms the respect it deserves.

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Source: The Daily Caller

Guns and Gear | Contributor

By Larry Keane

Memories are short in Washington, D.C. That is, at least, when it’s convenient for a presidential bid.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) visited New Hampshire voters last week, trying to make her mark in a crowded Democratic primary field. As a tactic, she decided to demonize firearms manufacturers. We’re not going to stay quiet.

Facts be damned. The junior senator from New York went full bore, leveling unfounded accusations, issuing factually nonsensical indictments and using the familiar buzz words of revisionist history that ring bells for those politicians seeking to burnish their gun-control bona fides with voters they can confuse.

And Now For Something Completely False

“Unfortunately, because the gun manufacturers only care about gun sales, they oppose the common sense reform that can save lives,” Sen. Gillibrand told her audience. “They want to oppose universal background checks because they want to sell an assault rifle to a teenager in a Walmart or to someone on a terror watch list or to someone who is gravely mentally ill with a violent background or to someone with a criminal conviction for a violent crime.”

All of this is patently false.

Sen. Gillibrand was one of 78 co-sponsors of the Fix NICS legislation that overwhelmingly passed the Senate and President Trump signed into law. The federal legislation was modeled on the National Shooting Sports Foundation® initiative of the same name that worked to get states to submit all disqualifying criminal and adjudicated mental health records into the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Checks System (NICS). Let’s be clear: the same gun industry she has chosen to attack to try to attract Democratic primary voters was getting laws changed in 16 states before Congress even took up the matter.

Sen. Gillibrand signed her name to the bill – and voted for – legislation brought by the very manufacturers she claims want to sell guns to everyone. She knows better.

Maybe Sen. Gillibrand has conveniently forgotten that the firearms industry was the originator of the point-of-sale instant background check, to ensure that only those who could be legally entrusted to possess a gun could buy them.

The senator also should know that so-called universal background checks are aimed at private gun sales, not the sales by retailers to private citizens that are already subject to background checks. The truth is she wants to make illegal the transfer of firearms between private parties. The firearms industry, however, cannot support making a criminal of an individual selling a friend a keepsake firearm or lending a shotgun for a duck hunt.

Trafficking In Untruth

The senator’s end-run on the truth didn’t stop there, though.

“They want to sell those things, no matter what, to anybody,” Sen. Gillibrand continued. “It is why they will not do common sense things like have an anti-trafficking law. In a state like New York, our number one problem is guns used in crimes get trafficked from out of state right into the hands of gang members. They will not support an anti-federal gun trafficking law.”

The senator should have a staffer call ATF or the Department of Justice. Federal laws now on the books already cover those offenses. We bring to the Senator’s attention this case from less than a year ago involving the arrests of three individuals attempting to move 40 guns from Virginia to, you guessed it, her state of New York. The guns were recovered on the street.

Moreover, Department of Justice surveys shows guns used in crimes are obtained through theft and the black market. It’s another reason her quest for a universal background check bill is ill-conceived. Criminals aren’t stopping for background checks when they steal dozens of guns at a time in smash-and-grab thefts.

Those thefts are trending down, the rapid response and continuing cooperation between federal and regional law enforcement assisted by a highly cooperative industry making that possible. Operation Secure Store®, a partnership between ATF and the firearms industry to help retailers improve security and reduce thefts from their stores, is contributing to this effort.

No Co-sponsorship For FFL Protection Act

More can be done. Sen. Gillibrand had a chance in the last Congress to co-sponsor the Federal Firearms Licensee Protection Act, S. 1854,introduced by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). It would have set a minimum sentence of three years for burglaries of firearms retailers and five years for robberies. The firearms industry supported this legislation because we know stolen guns move onward for use in other crimes. This legislation is still a priority for the firearms industry, but not for Sen. Gillibrand, apparently. She’s yet to agree to sign on to a bill that would take and keep gun traffickers off the street.

At one time, Sen. Gillibrand supported gun manufacturers. A decade ago, she announced she kept “two guns under her bed.” While not the wisest storage option, she was aligning herself with law-abiding gun owners. That changed for her when faced with political headwinds and rising ambitions. More recently, she said she’s embarrassed by her previous stance.

While memories are short in Washington D.C., the rest of America remembers.

Larry Keane is Senior Vice President and General Counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

Source: The Daily Caller

By Sheriff Jim Wilson, Shooting Illustrated

The vast majority of gun owners are also responsible citizens. That means most of you work for a living. You care for families. You care for your home. And, you take an active part in some phase of your community. Your time is one of the most-valuable things that you have, therefore it is important you budget it wisely. It is not only important to budget time for your defensive-shooting practice, but it is critical the practice in which you engage is the kind of practice that meets your needs.

So, I suggest that while spending time advancing on multiple targets with your AR while dressed in full tactical kit might be fun, think about how well it relates to what you may face in your daily life. Assaulting barricaded antagonists and clearing buildings are events that will probably not factor in to the threats that you may have to deal with in the real world.

It is far more likely that the defensive shooter will have to face armed robbery on the streets or in a place of business. He or she may have to deal with a carjacking or a road-rage incident. He or she certainly might have to defend themselves and their families against a home invasion. These realistic threats are what we should be practicing to deal with when our practice time is limited.

For this reason, I suggest to you that a good deal of your time should be spent in perfecting a speedy pistol presentation and first-shot hit. In my experience, the vast majority of crooks are actually cowards. Even though crooks tend to run in groups, a quick draw and a fight-stopping hit on an attacker may mean that this is the only shot that you will have to fire because his pals are going to be beating feet to get away.

Once a person has reached a decent level of proficiency in this rather simple drill, it is best to incorporate movement to one side or the other and the use of cover. Movement and cover greatly increase one’s chances of surviving a criminal attack.

A person should also think about the amount of time most of us spend sitting, either in chairs or in our vehicle. Yet, we rarely incorporate the pistol presentation from a seated position into our practice.  If you have to stand in order to draw your handgun, you are wasting time—time that is better spent delivering a fight-stopping shot.

When we start working from a seated position, we often find that the way we have chosen to carry our handgun may not be the best location for a quick draw. We also quickly realize that we have to take great care to not cover ourselves with the gun muzzle during the drawstroke. An unintentional shot to the groin or upper thighs may well impact the femoral artery, in which case we can be in big trouble quite rapidly—like succumbing to blood loss within a matter of seconds.

A lot of gun ranges don’t allow a person to practice defensive shooting from the holster or with a lot of movement. In which case, a person is advised to practice his shooting skills at the range and his presentation and other defensive skills at home during dry practice. Needless to say, the defensive shooter should go to great lengths to make sure he is doing his dry practice with an unloaded gun—I know, but check it again, will you?

Recently, on social media, we have been having a discussion about the need to practice drawing to the low-ready position instead of always going on target and firing your shot. In reality, firing a shot may not always be needed when we draw in an actual situation. In nearly 30 years as a Texas peace officer, I drew my handgun on countless occasions, but only had to actually fire it just a few times. The same is true for the armed citizen. You will actually have to fire only in a small percentage of the times that you draw your gun against a threat. Remember, crooks are cowards and most of them haven’t planned on armed resistance.

So, each of us needs to evaluate the amount of time that we can spend on defensive practice. And, we also need to give some serious thought to the type of practice we have time for. Practicing the pistol presentation and that all-important first-shot hit, from both standing and while seated, is critical. Once we are doing that smoothly and proficiently, we can incorporate some movement and use of cover. And it is also a good idea to practice drawing to the ready position so that we have the opportunity to evaluate the situation and determine if a shot actually needs to be fired.

In a life-threatening situation, folks rarely rise to the challenge and perform better than they usually do on the shooting range. In the real world, we generally function at a level significantly lower than what we’ve been able to do on the range. That’s what life-threatening stress will do to you.

It drives home why defensive practice is so important. Few of us have time to waste anymore. That’s why it is so wise to budget your time and to practice those things that really apply to your situation. Budget wisely and practice wisely; that’s the key to defensive success.

Thanks to Shooting Illustrated for this post. Click here to visit ShootingIllustrated.com.

Better yet: Click here to subscribe to SI’s free newsletter.

Click here to follow SI on Facebook.

Source: The Daily Caller

On Tuesday, U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) unabashedly embraced the tactics behind one of the most shameful policies of the Obama era, openly using the guise of her federal authority to berate and not so subtly threaten a bank for lawfully serving businesses that don’t reflect her political views. 

While the media did their best to protect Barack Obama and his administration from any hint of scandal, two gun related issues managed to stain the White House with considerable and widespread disrepute. 

One concerned a program to secretly “walk” guns from American firearm dealers directly into the clutches of ruthless Mexican drug cartels, while at the same using the resulting violence as a pretext to call for increased firearm regulation in the U.S. The officials involved dubbed this Operation Fast & Furious. It was only the death of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, killed in a shootout that involved one of the “walked” guns, that finally forced the issue into the national consciousness. 

The other scandal involved federal regulators pressuring banks and payment processors to sever ties with businesses that were completely lawful but that offended anti-gun sensibilities. These included members of the gun industry. This program was known as Operation Choke Point (OCP), and while no fatalities have been attributed to it, the scheme struck at the heart of the rule of law. 

In the case of OCP, Department of Justice and Federal Deposit Insurance Company officials provided sworn testimony to Congress denying that regulators were pressuring banks to drop business the regulators found morally objectionable. Apparently, they suggested, the banks just misunderstood the “risk management” guidance they were being provided. In time (after considerable damage had already been done, and the banks thoroughly understood their unwritten marching orders), guidance documents were revised to “clarify” the regulators’ “true intent.”

The NRA and others have already been reporting on how shades of OCP have reappeared in a re-emboldened anti-gun House majority, as well as in their media and plutocratic enablers. 

But an oversight hearing by the House Financial Services Committee on Tuesday provided one of the clearest and most shocking examples to date of how anti-gun Democrats are now willing to embrace as official policy what was still treated as scandal under the Obama administration.

The title of the hearing was “Holding Megabanks Accountable: An Examination of Wells Fargo’s Pattern of Consumer Abuses.” Wells Fargo, not coincidentally, provides banking services to the NRA. 

The only witness at the four hour plus hearing was Wells Fargo President and Chief Executive Officer Timothy J. Sloan. Mr. Sloan had the unenviable task of serving as punching bag during an extended production of Political Outrage Theatre. The entire premise of the hearing was that Wells Fargo might very well have to endure yet more regulation and oversight – or perhaps be broken up altogether – unless Mr. Sloan provided satisfactory answers to committee members’ questions about the bank and its business practices.

Maloney, for her part, excoriated Mr. Sloan and Wells Fargo for refusing to follow the lead of other national banks that had refused or severed business with members of the gun industry that did not “voluntarily” adopt certain gun control “best practices” that exceed the requirements of federal law.  

These practices include banning long gun purchases by young adults eligible for military service and refusing to recognize the 3-day default transfer option that gun dealers may exercise if the FBI does not complete a background check. They also just happened to mirror policy goals that anti-gun Democrats – a category that includes Maloney herself – have been pursuing through legislation they have not to date been successful in enacting. 

Maloney, in other words, was not accusing Wells Fargo of having done anything illegal by transacting with members of the firearm industry. Rather, she was criticizing the bank for not imposing anti-gun rules that Congress itself has failed to adopt. 

Maloney noted that Wells Fargo does have corporate “human rights” practices that in some cases exceed legal and industry standards. She then mentioned the Parkland massacre, as if Wells Fargo were somehow complicit in the acts of a deranged murderer who had nothing to do with the bank and who had been given authorization to buy the gun he used in his crime by the federal government itself via its background check system.

“Why,” Maloney demanded to know, “does Wells Fargo continue to put profits over people by financing companies that are making weapons that are literally killing our children and our neighbors? … How bad does the mass shooting epidemic have to get before you will adopt common sense gun safety policies like other banks have done?”

Given the backdrop of Operation Choke Point, Maloney might as well have asked, “Federal regulators and big city newspapers have browbeaten your competition into submission on the issue of servicing firearm industry clients. How dare you defy their wishes and continue to do so?” She also invoked the shibboleth that school shootings are increasing, a premise that research refutes. 

Mr. Sloan calmly answered, “We don’t put profits over people. We bank many industries across this country.” He continued, “We do our best to ensure that all of our customers who we bank follow the laws and regulations that are in place on a local and a state and a national level.” 

Maloney then interrupted, insisting that the bank’s commitment to gun control should be as strong as its commitment to human rights. 

Mr. Sloan, however, stood his ground. “We just don’t believe that it is a good idea to encourage banks to enforce legislation that doesn’t exist.”

He didn’t add, but he could have, that respect for human rights also necessitates respect for the fundamental rights of self-preservation and self-protection. 

The entire exchange can be seen on this video, starting at 48:03.

Needless to say, no business in America could survive if it had to comply not just with all the binding laws that regulators foist upon the country’s companies and employers but with the personal sensibilities and politics of all 535 federal legislators, plus those of thousands of federal bureaucrats. 

Nor could any business survive if it had to answer for every unaffiliated person who abused or misused one of its products or services. 

That is why America is often said to be a country of laws, not men. That principle has provided the most stable and prosperous economy and business environment the world has ever known.

That stability is threatened, however, by those like Maloney and others who would rule by intimidation and humiliation rather than by duly enacted legislation.

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Source: The Daily Caller

Current track