Doing Business in Texas: guns v the bankers

Investment Analysis Clubs Macro Economic Trends and Risks
1

All of this happening this month before the massacre.

NYT Dealbook email with no link

by Stephen Gandel, news editor Dealbook

snippet

In a letter sent to the Texas attorney general this month, JPMorgan, the nation’s largest bank, signaled its willingness to continue working with the firearm industry. The letter described the bank’s “longstanding business relationships” with the industry in the state, noting that it “anticipates continuing such relationships into the future.”

The letter, which was sent by lawyers representing the bank from the firm Foley & Lardner on May 13, was in response to a new law in Texas that bans state agencies from working with a firm that “discriminates” against companies or individuals in the gun industry. One provision of the law requires banks and other professional service firms to submit written affirmations that they comply with the law.

The bank’s policy “does not discriminate against or prevent” it from doing business “with any firearm entity or firearm trade association ‘based solely on its status as a firearm entity or firearm trade association,’” the letter declared.

1 Like
2

I wonder what would happen if a state like California, for instance, passed a law with the opposite intent of Texas’s.

3 Likes
3

The bank’s policy “does not discriminate against or prevent” it from doing business “with any firearm entity or firearm trade association ‘based solely on its status as a firearm entity or firearm trade association,’” the letter declared.

Yes corporations are completely amoral. They are interested only in profit.
The Supreme Court Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision needs to be revisited.
Also congress should look to Canada’s laws regarding campaign contributions & short campaigns (months rather than years) & adopt them for our country.
It won’t happen of course our republic & its representatives has already been sold to special interests. Why would they permit any changes to the system they have corrupted?

5 Likes
4

Pucks,

I’d rather have a law affecting gun sellers. Any homicide or suicide the laws would allow any citizen to sue the gun seller.

If the US Supreme Court overturns that then there is a precedent for overturning the Texas abortion act on the same grounds.

3 Likes
5

It’s a good idea because then if someone kills somebody with their car we could sue the car company. Another thought, if someone kills a person with a knife we could sue the knife manufacturer. We should also be able to sue the ammo company because it wasn’t the gun, it was the bullet! lol…doc

1 Like
6

If a pharmacy starts to sell poison to the public you do not sue. The pharmacist is charged with a crime instead.

So if you sell a gun and it gets used for harm you have product liability which is civil or you have contributing to a murder a felony.

If a car company sells a car and the driver kills someone else the intent of the car was not to kill someone.

Guns are for killing people. That is their main intent.

I know guns do not kill people, people kill people…and getting a gun built for the job is the intent of the gun manufacture. They are not lollypops.

1 Like
7

So if a company makes a poison, its not liable but the pharmacist is for selling it. However, the gun manufacturer is liable for making a gun not the person who sold it.

Its interesting that the person doing the killing isn’t responsible.

However, isn’t it great that we have freedom of speech and the thought police aren’t coming to get us for discussing this!

I honestly don’t want to continue this conversation, I can’t win against this type of logic…doc

8

Who said that?

What thought police?

9

So, the next logical step would be to ban companies that do business with other companies that “discriminate” against the gun industry.

Steve

2 Likes