\n<\/p>\n
Longstanding regulatory definitions have been weaponized against gun owners to ban firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition. It is no stretch of the imagination that a rule change could amend the definition of \u201cunsafe or unsound practices\u201d at 12 C.F.R. \u00a7 390.419 to also include the sale of firearms, firearm accessories, ammunition, and other dangerous weapons to the general public.<\/p>\n
Federal gun laws give the Department of Justice wide authority to regulate the actions of and require recordkeeping by gun companies. Many such violations are mundane and simple mistakes\u2014such as misspelling an abbreviation on a form\u2014for which a gun store could now be penalized. Good-faith, clerical, and ultimately harmless errors in FFL recordkeeping are a statistical inevitability. For example, ATF\u2019s published data concerning its compliance inspections in 2020 reflects that it conducted 5,823 inspections and found and reported errors in 43.7% of them.[i]<\/a> ATF\u2019s compliance inspections for 2022 increased over 2020 by 1,156 inspections to 6,979 inspections, and ATF\u2019s data reflects that it found and reported errors in 45.5% of the inspected FFLs.[ii]<\/a> In summary, a failure to clarify whether this section applies only to banking regulations could encourage anti-gun bureaucrats to recommend nearly half of all gun stores lose access to financial services!<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n If an anti-gun bureaucrat \u201chas reasonable cause to believe that\u201d a member of the firearm industry or their customer \u201chas engaged, is engaged, or is about to\u201d violate federal gun laws, then the anti-gun bureaucrats can recommend de-banking. For example, it is a crime for a gun store to transfer a firearm to a prohibited person, yet criminals purchase firearms all the time, whether by lying on a background check form or the broken background check system failing. By arguing that there is \u201creasonable cause to believe\u201d that criminals will commit gun crimes after acquiring firearms at gun stores in the future, an anti-gun bureaucrat could easily recommend de-banking gun stores under the SAFER Banking Act.<\/p>\n Rule changes have been weaponized to ban firearms (like pistol braced weapons), firearm accessories (like bump stocks), and ammunition (President Obama\u2019s failed green tip ammunition ban) in recent years. These rule changes often falsely assert that (1) the agency had always affirmed what is truly a new position and (2) prior nonbinding guidance given to the industry was incorrect. Therefore, the manufacturer of a product could be de-banked for violating a rule that was just changed even though they had followed ATF guidance at the time.<\/p>\n Even though it is not required by federal law, the firearm industry routinely submits products to ATF in order to receive non-binding determination letters. These determination letters have been reversed in order to destroy entire sectors of the firearm industry\u2014such as bump stock, solvent trap, weapons parts kit, and pistol brace manufacturers. Further, Gun Owners of America has documented instances on which ATF has issued contradictory classification letters on the same day<\/em>. Under the SAFER Banking Act, a gun store could be de-banked for ignoring incorrect ATF classification letters and guidance.<\/p>\n According to the SAFER Banking Act, \u201cany activity, conduct, or condition\u201d becomes a valid reason for an anti-gun bureaucrat to recommend de-banking a gun store if could possibly become \u201ca matter requiring attention\u201d including \u201ca supervisory recommendation.\u201d Surely creative anti-gun bureaucrats will abuse such a vague loophole to attack the firearm industry.<\/p>\n Agencies responsible for national security now routinely refer to gun owners as \u201cMilitia Violent Extremists\u201d or \u201cDomestic Violent Extremists.\u201d It is no stretch of the imagination that bureaucrats might recommend de-banking the entire firearm industry based solely on this abhorrent determination that firearm industry customers \u201cpose a threat to national security.\u201d Recent history suggests this is clearly the Democrats and the anti-gun lobby\u2019s goal, such as when:<\/p>\n As anti-American bureaucrats have begun labeling patriotic imagery as symbols of violent extremism, this arbitrary set of rules could now punish gun manufacturers for using the Betsy Ross, Gadsden Flag, and more when marketing firearms to customers.<\/p>\n During Operation Fast and Furious the federal government allowed a \u201ctransnational criminal organization, drug trafficking organization, or money laundering organization\u201d\u2014namely agents of Mexican cartels\u2014to purchase firearms at gun stores. In response, Congress passed language preventing federal agents from letting cartels obtain firearms \u201cunless law enforcement personnel of the United States continuously monitor or control the firearm at all times.\u201d Therefore, ATF could \u201cmonitor\u201d silently as a Mexican Drug Cartel purchased firearms from an unsuspecting gun store only for banking bureaucrats to use that purchase to recommend de-banking that gun store for its unknowing and unwilling participance.<\/p>\n Criminals routinely straw purchase firearms and lie to gun dealers in violation of federal law. Some surveys estimate that perhaps as many as 30,000 straw purchases are attempted at gun stores each year.[iii]<\/a> Further, 10.1% of prisoners report obtaining their firearms from \u201ca retail source.\u201d[iv]<\/a> Under the SAFER Banking Act, bureaucrats would be encouraged to recommend de-banking gun stores for the actions of these criminals.<\/p>\n [i]<\/a> https:\/\/www.atf.gov\/firearms\/firearms-compliance-inspection-results<\/a><\/p>\n [ii]<\/a> https:\/\/www.atf.gov\/resource-center\/fact-sheet\/fact-sheet-facts-and-figures-fiscal-year-2022<\/a><\/p>\n [iii]<\/a> https:\/\/giffords.org\/lawcenter\/gun-laws\/policy-areas\/crime-guns\/trafficking-straw-purchasing\/<\/a><\/p>\n [iv]<\/a> https:\/\/bjs.ojp.gov\/content\/pub\/pdf\/suficspi16.pdf<\/a><\/p>\nBy finding \u201ca violation of an applicable law\u201d<\/h2>\n
By finding \u201ca violation of an applicable\u2026 rule\u201d<\/h2>\n
By finding \u201ca violation of an applicable\u2026 written agency guidance\u201d<\/h2>\n
By classifying standard industry practices as a \u201cmatter requiring attention\u201d<\/h2>\n
By classifying customers as \u201ca threat to national security\u201d<\/h2>\n
\n
By classifying customers as \u201ca transnational criminal organization [or] drug trafficking organization\u201d<\/h2>\n
By classifying firearm industry customers as \u201cengaged in\u2026 criminal activity\u201d<\/h2>\n