Rand Paul introduces an amendment to prevent the DOJ from using Operation Choke Point to punish gun dealers
Operation Choke Point is an initiative started by the Department on Injustice back in 2013 with the stated goal of protecting consumers from fraud by scrutinizing banks which deal heavily with “high risk” businesses.
Of course the Federal government is tasked with identifying these “high risk” businesses so when the Congress failed to pass Barack Obama’s gun control legislation the regime decided to add gun manufacturers and dealers to the list of “high risk” businesses in an apparent attempt to choke off the sale of guns. This has had some early success, banks not wishing to receive additional scrutiny from the Federal government have decided to stop doing business with gun dealers in several cases.
Rand Paul sees this for what it is, an end-around the Congress, and he has added an amendment to the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for the 2015 which would prevent the FDIC and the Department of Injustice from using Operation Choke Point to target gun manufacturers and dealers by cutting off the funding for this aspect of the initiative.
Kentucky U.S. Sen. Rand Paul has filed an amendment aimed at protecting Second Amendment rights by preventing two federal agencies from pulling an “end-around” on gun and ammunition manufacturers and sellers.
Paul is seeking to amend the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for the 2015 budget to prevent any funds given to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) or Department of Justice (DOJ) from targeting gun and ammunition companies.
In Paul’s amendment, filed Thursday evening, the FDIC will not be allowed “to classify the sale or manufacture of a firearm or ammunition as an activity involving risk.”
This is a much needed step in the right direction and I applaud Rand Paul but if I had to guess this will be DOA in the Democratic controlled Senate. The Senate will strip the bill of this amendment and send it to the House and it will be interesting to see if the House at that point stands with the Constitution, and Rand Paul, or if they once again give in to the Democrats while promising to fight another day.
America's Watchtower 
Reblogged this on U.S. Constitutional Free Press.
LikeLike
Thank you.
LikeLike
Their creativity to circumvent Congress never ceases to amaze. Getting the Patent Office involved in the Washington Redskins debate marks a new low. This I would put at number two. But not to worry, if this doesn’t work, they will try something else to get our guns.
LikeLike
There is more than one way to skin a cat, that is what Obama said about cap and trade and that is his philosophy on everything. There is no agency or scheme he will not use to impose his will on the American people.
LikeLike
Paul’s legislation is misguided. By specifically exempting firearms enterprises from the list of high risk enterprises, isn’t he pretty much declaring them incorruptible? And doesn’t it tell the bad guys that if they want to launder money or commit other types of fraud, all they have to do is set themselves as a firearms company, because the government is prevented from investigating them?
The problem isn’t DOJ targeting firearms enterprises, the problem is banks denying them accounts because of the business they’re in. And the banks have a modicum of public support for their action, because of the low repute in which many Americans hold firearms enterprises.
However, if banks are suddenly morally outraged by firearms enterprises’ activities and express that outrage by denying them bank accounts, why are they also not denying bank accounts to liquor distilleries, abortion providers, pornographers, and others with legitimate businesses whose activities usually have a good portion of the people outraged?
The proper focus of the legislation should be those banks. I mean, we create a magnificent environment within which they can do business virtually tax-free, and when they make a mistake, we’re knocking at their doors, hats in hand, begging them to take the people’s money to cover their losses.
And then they have the balls to deny bank accounts to businesses that are perfectly legal. All they’re doing is seeking to avoid risk – the kind of risk we reward them for taking when we create that favorable business environment and array of tax preferences. And when we bail them out after they destroy the economy – did I mention that?
There are legitimate business reasons to deny someone a bank account – like a history of abuse, like bouncing checks. But if an enterprise meets normal guidelines, whether or not it might be considered a “high-risk” business, a bank should not be able to deny it banking services, and if it incurs extra expenses related to monitoring those accounts in connection with the law, that’s simply a cost of doing business.
Take good care and may God bless us all!
TGY
LikeLike
I understand what you are saying about the banks and I agree, however the banks are feeling pressure to do this from Operation Choke Point otherwise they would not be “suddenly morally outraged” with the firearms companies. This goes beyond the banks. If we look at your example of people setting themselves up as a firearms company to avoid detection because they are not going to be investigated by the government than shouldn’t all businesses be put on the “high risk” list for the same reason?
LikeLike