LA: Attorney General drops Citibank, BofA from state contract for suppressing 2A

[Alamo]

Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry and the state’s Bond Commission denied $600 million to Citibank and Bank of America over the gun control stance adopted by both companies.

 

[littletommy]

Awesome! My oldest son lives down there, and has told me how 2A friendly the area he lives in is. We're going down there next week for a visit.

 

[HoughMade]

Hmmm. Interesting. This will be one to watch.

 

[femurphy77]

You can almost already hear the screams of "Blood in the Streets"!

 

[Spear Dane]

 

[MrWizard]

Interesting. While I sincerely appreciate that an entity that is large enough to make a difference in future policy decisions is taking a stand, the fact that it is a government entity without any financial incentive (benefit to taxpayers) or legal reason to do so is kinda shady. That being said, if they were to choose another bank that is equally as capable; good on them!

I’m interested in seeing what the banks’ and constituents’ responses are.

 

[Alamo]

Interesting. While I sincerely appreciate that an entity that is large enough to make a difference in future policy decisions is taking a stand, the fact that it is a government entity without any financial incentive (benefit to taxpayers) or legal reason to do so is kinda shady. That being said, if they were to choose another bank that is equally as capable; good on them!

I’m interested in seeing what the banks’ and constituents’ responses are.

I don't think financial benefit to the taxpayer is the only reason that government can take action on an issue? For example, what interest would the government have if BofA decided not to provide financial services to businesses that refuse to do business with people of certain races? Or bake, or not bake a cake for certain people? What if BofA colludes (!) with other corporations to suppress the activities of people engaged in a civil right enumerated in the Bill of Rights?

Believe me, governments often refuse to deal with businesses who do not have "enough" of the right color/gendered people, or who cannot provide evidence that they follow certain public policy decisions on everything from ozone depleting chemicals to...straws.

 

[HoughMade]

I don't think financial benefit to the taxpayer is the only reason that government can take action on an issue? For example, what interest would the government have if BofA decided not to provide financial services to businesses that refuse to do business with people of certain races? Or bake, or not bake a cake for certain people? What if BofA colludes (!) with other corporations to suppress the activities of people engaged in a civil right enumerated in the Bill of Rights?

Believe me, governments often refuse to deal with businesses who do not have "enough" of the right color/gendered people, or who cannot provide evidence that they follow certain public policy decisions on everything from ozone depleting chemicals to...straws.

You make some good points.

I like what they're doing, but generally speaking, there are things private entities can do that governmental entities cannot. I don't know if choosing to not do business with a private entity due to a political position it holds and implements is something a governmental entity can or cannot legally do. I have not researched it. Like I said, it is interesting.

 

[MrWizard]

I don't think financial benefit to the taxpayer is the only reason that government can take action on an issue? For example, what interest would the government have if BofA decided not to provide financial services to businesses that refuse to do business with people of certain races? Or bake, or not bake a cake for certain people? What if BofA colludes (!) with other corporations to suppress the activities of people engaged in a civil right enumerated in the Bill of Rights?

Believe me, governments often refuse to deal with businesses who do not have "enough" of the right color/gendered people, or who cannot provide evidence that they follow certain public policy decisions on everything from ozone depleting chemicals to...straws.

I didn’t say that financial benefit to the taxpayer was the only reason to take action. Policy and legal precedent clearly do and should play a part. All I’m saying is that if there is a good legal reason to avoid business with the banks, it seems like direct legal action would be more appropriate than informally punishing them for their policy that the Louisiana officials (and I, and you I assume?) believe is suppression of 2nd amendment rights, but has not been deemed so by any court (as far as I know, though I can’t say I’ve followed this terribly closely). The issues that you mention have largely made it through the legal system, while this has not. Instead of receiving a financial punishment/withholding, they ought to receive a mandate to eliminate this policy. Can’t really do that without judicial input, I imagine.

 

[Thor]

Commentary from the LA AG

https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/08...nNHluVnVFOTk2TkdsV3pYTlhDK3I5a2pIZ3RZdXhRRSJ9

I think calling people and organizations out on becoming a domestic enemy is a good thing. The Constitution stands as the pinnacle of law in this Representative Republic. If a private entity decides to not support the law then that Republic should not do business with them. The bond board did the right thing, a practice not common enough. IANAL, just a citizen.

I'm sure that pettifoggers, actual and barracks variety, will dissemble.