Gun Control Laws And Opposition


PREMO Member

Major Credit Card Companies to Adopt Code to Track Firearms, Ammo Purchases, Per CA Law

American Express, Visa, and Mastercard have announced they will comply with a California law that requires the companies to begin using a merchant code specific to firearms and ammunition retailers.

Major credit card companies are moving to make a merchant code available for firearm and ammunition retailers in order to comply with a new California law that will allow banks to potentially track suspicious gun purchases and report them to law enforcement, CBS News has learned.
Retailers are assigned merchant codes based on the types of goods they sell, and the codes allow banks and credit card companies to detect purchase patterns. Currently gun shops are lumped in with other types of retailers, such as sporting goods stores.
Mastercard, Visa and American Express initially agreed to implement a standalone code for firearm sellers, but later paused their work on it after receiving blowback from Second Amendment advocates concerned tracking gun purchases would infringe on the rights of legal gun owners.

Like so many anti-Second Amendment laws, this one was passed by a legislature, most of whose members know nothing about firearms and have no idea as to the root causes of the criminal use of firearms and mass shootings; they are driven by the perceived need to "do something," which manifests with the decision, "This is something — let's do this!"

Gun control activists hope the code, approved by an international organization in 2022, can be used as a tool to help identify suspect purchases and, consequently, stop gun crime, including mass shootings. Proponents say a code for firearms merchants would allow banks and credit unions to alert law enforcement of potentially suspicious purchasing patterns in the same way they already flag other types of transactions, such as those that suggest identity theft or terrorist financing.
While a merchant code for standalone firearm and ammunition sellers would yield data that shows a transaction was made at a gun store, the credit card companies say the code would not provide details about the customer or insight into individual items that were purchased.

In other words, someone could walk into Cabela's, buy a thousand dollars worth of camouflage shirts and trousers, and be flagged as suspicious even though they never walked past the gun racks. The only way this could have any effect is if it tracked individual purchases, which would be an outright violation of the Fourth Amendment.


PREMO Member

So, we start with the basic question: Is this true? Are they trying to ban church security? We admit when we saw it, we wondered if they would be so brazen in their hostility to two constitutional amendments.

Well, the short answer is they are not doing this directly, but the bill they are pushing would make many forms of private security illegal, including what is commonly used by churches. We liken it to a boss saying no one is allowed to wear headwear at work. Maybe it isn't designed to screw over orthodox Jews and other people who believe as a matter of faith they have to wear headwear, but it certainly has that effect.


Anyone notice what is not included? Um, the police, and other law enforcement agencies. So, we have a question: is this a sneaky way to disband (or disarm) the FBI, the DEA, the BATF and all local police? Or did they forget that these things existed? Since leftists tend to like things like the BATF these days—after all, the confiscation of illegal firearms is a huge part of their mission—we will assume they just forgot about law enforcement. But it’s still funny.

Of course, the more basic part of all of this is that it infringes on the right to create or join a militia and we do believe that right is in the Constitution. One might point at the Second Amendment and there is nothing wrong with citing it, but we think the better argument for the right to a militia—besides the history of our revolution—is actually found in the First Amendment’s right of assembly. You have a right to peaceable assembly under the First Amendment and your decision to exercise your rights under the Second Amendment doesn’t negate that.

Which is not to say that everything in that statute would be covered by this nexus of the First and Second Amendments. You don’t have a right to ‘interfere with, interrupt, or attempt to interfere with or interrupt government operations or a government proceeding’—if ‘interfere’ is interpreted as it is elsewhere in the U.S. Code, so that genuine First Amendment activity is protected.

We also think that there is a right to defend yourself in the Constitution that this infringes. Some say it is in the Second Amendment—and that can certainly be cited in support—but we would locate it in the Fifth. For instance, if a man is shooting at you, and the law purports to tell you that you are not allowed to shoot back, we believe that is depriving you of your right to life without due process of law. And if you have a right to defend yourself, then we think you equally have a right to hire people to defend you.

So, does it deprive churches of private security? Not by name—because that would violate the First Amendment’s religion clauses. But many churches don’t hire official security companies but rather just let a few volunteers protect their grounds, and that is likely to run afoul of this bill, should it become law. The effect of doing so is also to make protecting churches much more expensive—which inevitably means many churches won’t be able to afford this. This is being done less than a few days after an attempted mass shooting at Joel Osteen’s church in Houston, because of course. We don’t know whether the off-duty cop—who apparently stopped an attempted mass shooting by a transgender pro-Hamass activist—was even officially sanctioned by the Osteen’s church, but that case certainly highlights the need for churches to have security, as does the perennial problem of church burnings. Considering how often black churches are attacked, you would think Democrats wouldn’t want to burden their security.

So, it is definitely an assault on the right to form a militia. It also definitely seems to have the disproportionate effect of outlawing many common methods of securing churches. In other words, our analysis doesn’t make the claim this would disarm churches wrong, just that they are glossing over the nuances. And frankly, we think the original piece sounding the alarm on this didn’t gloss over this. We believe this controversy started with a piece from something called ‘Protestia’—which promotes itself as a ‘polemical news site that is dedicated to providing Christian news and discernment in an age of widespread censorship’ and they dug into the law with enough detail to show you how they were making their argument:

Last edited:

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Funny, for a "deep dive" into the bill the reporter hasn't discovered that the bill was introduced on 1/16/24 and has only 1 cosponsor. So far it was introduced, read twice and then referred to the Judiciary Committee. I doubt it will do anything other then die in committee.


Well-Known Member
We just had a Mass killing avoided in a Church, by armed guards, yes, paid off duty officers, but indeed armed guards.
This fool this crazed man claiming to be a woman brought his child into a church and meant to murder innocents in that Church.
And these fools in Congress want to make it illegal to have armed guards?

Pretty sure that woin't pass but just think of what fools we have making our laws to even bring up such bullshit.

It is abhorrent that armed guards are necessary, at places we go to, but that is today's world.


American Beauty
PREMO Member
Just the person to weigh in.

A lifelong stoner.
Posted by a HS friend:
Do I believe I have friends that are competent to own guns. Yes I do.
Does not change my belief…no guns.
If I know you have a weapon…I’m not your friend.

My response:
I was glad to have a rifle in the house when there was a man on my property refusing to leave.

He hasn't dumped me, yet. :lol:


PREMO Member

TikTok Mom Mocks Gun Owners Asking Why Are They So Afraid Of A Tyrannical Government​

I am sure this leftist was happy with the Covid Response from the Gov.


PREMO Member

California Violated the Second Amendment by Disarming People Based on Nullified Convictions

The state of California employed Kendall Jones as a correctional officer for 29 years and as a firearms and use-of-force trainer for 19 years. But in 2018, when Jones sought to renew the certificate of eligibility required for firearms instructors, the California Department of Justice (DOJ) informed him that he was not allowed to possess guns under state law because of a 1980 Texas conviction for credit card abuse. Jones committed that third-degree felony in Houston when he was 19, and his conviction was set aside after he completed a probation sentence.

According to the DOJ, that did not matter: Because of his youthful offense, which Jones said involved a credit card he had obtained from someone who falsely claimed he was authorized to use it, the longtime peace officer was permanently barred from owning or possessing firearms in California. That application of California law violated the Second Amendment, a federal judge ruled this week in Linton v. Bonta, which also involves two other similarly situated plaintiffs.


PREMO Member

GOP Ohio Sen Candidate Bernie Moreno Mocks Gun Owners: 'Do You Really Need 100 Bullets?'

"On the gun debate, we can't say this is how many magazines you are going to have? What kind of gun do you need to have a hundred bullets in it?" he asked.

"That doesn't mean I'm going to take your g-d gun away. Do you really need a hundred bullets at one time? I mean, do you have that kind of ADD? 'No, no, I want to shoot a hundred bullets?'" Moreno and Hudak laughed hysterically at the notion that someone might want to stock up on ammo.

"There's a lot of deer out there," Hudak quipped.

"And are you going to eat a deer that has a hundred bullets in it?" Moreno added. More hysterical laughter over one of our most sacred rights.

"Can we have some types of guns that you say it's kind of like porn? 'PG,' 'R,' 'not-R'?" [more laughter]

"Can't there be some common sense that says that one [gun] is probably out, right, without infringing on someone's rights? Can't we have universal background checks?"

No and no.