Banks have been telling commercial customers that they will not do business with them any longer, if the customer sells anything that the bank doesn't like- including so-called assault weapons, sells firearms to 18-20 year olds, and certain other products.
Following this, we are told that this is not a violation of people's constitutional rights, because the Constitution only restrict government, not private individuals or businesses. I disagree.
It turns out that the banks in question are doing so because they are being pressured by government officials to adopt these policies. This has been a trend as of late, where government is effectively deputizing private entities to make end runs around the Constitutional protections we enjoy. For example, using the Geek Squad to peek into computers and then turn in suspected law violators. When being done at government request, searching a person's papers and personal effects is still a violation of privacy, which is exactly what the BOR was trying to prevent.
How is it any different if the government violates you second hand or first hand? The government telling a bank to keep you from buying firearms is the same thing as the government telling you that you cannot buy them. It is still a violation of your rights.
No comments:
Post a Comment