Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Thoughts on the California shooting | Main | "Media Matters" stoops to new low to defame NRA »

"Operation Choke Point"

Posted by David Hardy · 29 May 2014 02:04 PM

Operation Choke Point officially involved investigating banks that dealt with "high risk" businesses, in order to pressure them to drop their customers. Now it's becoming obvious that its targets include licensed firearms and ammunition dealers. (It also was expanded to payday lenders, for no apparent reason except that the government frowns upon them).

Sounds to me like a possible case of tortious interference with contract. That's a clear case where someone has a binding contract of fixed duration, and someone else does something to lead the other party to break the contract. It's less clear where the contract is one that doesn't have a fixed duration, but in practice will continue until something happens; it's less clear because in a free market you want someone else to be able to outbid the current contract holder and offer a better deal. But here, there is no better deal being offered. It's straight out use of government harassment aimed at disrupting a contractual relationship, without economic benefit either to the bank or to the government.

At the same time, the Administration is quieting banks' fears regarding lending to marijuana distribution companies. The banks were worried there for the obvious reason that the businesses' activities are Federal felonies, albeit the law is generally not being enforced. But that could vanish with the stroke of a pen, or the next election, and then whoever knowingly aided the business would be guilty of those felonies, as one who aided and abetted them. Now, there would be a "high risk" line of business!

3 Comments | Leave a comment

fwb | May 29, 2014 2:27 PM | Reply

Why did the Framers explicitly grant punishment authority for counterfeiting but not for say drugs or alcohol? WHy was the 18th amendment necessary? From what authority do federal felonies devolve? If one claims the N&P clause, then why did the Framers explicitly grant punishment power for counterfeiting, for piracies and felonies on the high seas, for offenses against the law of nations in the same section as the N&P clause and then NOT include any punishment/police power under the taxation and commerce clauses? Can anyone provide a well-reasoned explanation as to why the N&P confers police power in some areas but the Framers did not see the N&P as providing police power in other areas? Could it be that, except for the 6 or so police powers granted, the federal government has no constitutional authority to make anything a crime except for things that fall within the granted police powers? It matters not that the federal laws are well-intentioned or needed. It matters that the federal government does not have the legal, constitutional authority to police activities. The police power was left to each state.

Anonymous | May 29, 2014 5:06 PM | Reply

There's something else going on here. If the gun dealers do business with non-traditional banks in the wrong ways they can be punished for money laundering. That would include doing business with an offshore bank not subject to US regulation. The government's actions in denying them conventional banking could easily create a situation where they have to break the law to stay in business at all.

That's on top of the obvious 2nd Amendment violation.

This is a very very bad development.

Rich | May 30, 2014 9:26 AM | Reply

Just another way for the administration who can't get the laws passed that they want to accomplish their goal, control and subjugation of the people. Can't do constitutionally, we will do it some other way

Leave a comment