Has the Left Found a Way Around the Second Amendment?

“It’s too early to say for sure, but it could be that the free market will wind up doing what Congress refuses to do: tighten access to firearms and stand up to companies that make and sell assault-style weapons,” a recent Los Angeles Times editorial tells us.

By the “free market,” of course, the editorial does not mean that the people themselves will rise up and stop giving their business to gun manufacturers. The Los Angeles Times is not suggesting that there is any particular groundswell of support for, say, a boycott of Wal-Mart or any other big corporation that sells guns in accordance with their business model. They don’t suggest this because there’s no evidence that this is happening. Even the big NRA boycott that the left tried to implement after Parkland fell flat on its face; the organization reported an enormous boost in memberships in the month following the shooting. There is no – NO – free market revolt against guns, distributors, or manufacturers. None at all.

But they don’t mean that. By “free market,” they’re talking about the big Wall Street banks, which have recently begun implementing policies that could – if seen through to their conclusion – make it very difficult for gun sellers to make a living in the United States.

Bank of America announced that any companies that manufacture AR-15s and their ilk will have to go elsewhere for financing. Citigroup announced that clients would have to prove they run background checks and sell to no one younger than 21 if they wanted to procure financial services through their banks. Wells Fargo has attempted to stay above the fray and avoid this temptation to develop financial policy at (no pun intended) gunpoint, and they have attracted the wrath of the left for standing strong. It may be only a matter of time before they give in to the pressure.

It’s with no small amount of irony that we point out, of course, that many of these financial institutions are around today ONLY because they were rescued with taxpayer money in the aftermath of the 2007 crash. So why don’t we take a step back and breathe before we go tossing around terms like the “free market,” eh? These banks would be history if left to the whims of the free market, and it’s a true slap in the face for them to now turn around and exert some kind of corporate STATE in which they get to provide the left with an end-around the U.S. Constitution.

We’ll see where this leads. The good news is that the free market does, indeed, mean that where one door closes, another one opens. And there may soon be an extraordinary opportunity for reputable up-and-coming banks to provide exactly the kind of financial services that Bank of America and Citigroup are declining to provide. In the meantime, if you have accounts with these banks and are in a position where you can go elsewhere, this might be a good time to show these companies what the free market is actually all about.