I just happened across this release from NSSF. I found this concept fundamentally interesting. I always hesitate to restrict businesses from participating, even if they hold a silly viewpoint, but this requires some thought and consideration. Discrimination is different, however. Apparently, the state of TX, followed the great state of Iowa, in passing Constitutional (permitless) Carry. We’re glad to see them hurrying to catch up to Iowa’s great example!
“The new law requires corporations seeking to do business with the state and local government to certify that they hold no policies that discriminate against firearms or ammunition companies and will not implement any such policies while the contracts are in force. The law ensures that taxpayer-funded contracts aren’t used to benefit policies that discriminate and deny services to firearm and ammunition-related businesses. Texas taxpayers won’t be burdened with funding discriminatory policies that undermine their rights and throttle the businesses that provide the means to exercise those rights.”
What do you think? Do businesses that arbitrarily discriminate against your civil rights really need to be enjoying taxpayer dollars to do so?
Find the full article HERE.
IFC is a proud member of the NSSF.
In Liberty,
Michael Ware
IFC Chairman
The article mentioned says in part, ““Governor Abbott and the Texas legislature sent a clear message that Texas is not willing to sell out the Second Amendment rights of her citizens. Governor Abbott recognizes it is wrong to compel freedom-loving Texans to fund corporate gun control,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel.”
Yet, directly below that is says, “The new law requires corporations seeking to do business with the state and local government to certify that they hold no policies that discriminate against firearms or ammunition companies and will not implement any such policies while the contracts are in force.”
If these paragraphs were opposing “energies”, the result would be “ZERO”. And here’s why….
….Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel says “specifically”, “Texas is not willing to sell out the Second Amendment rights of her citizens”, yet in actual reading of the bill, which I did, it only mentions “entities” and NOT citizens.
Folks, do you see the OXYMORON HERE? Did Keane not bother to read this bill before he opines about it, when he “knew or should have known” his statement was wrong? Did Abbot not read this bill before he signed it since it could still have dangerous ramifications for Texas citizens?
If the shooters of this country don’t write in to the NSSF and ask, “just what the “h-e-double hockey sticks” in going on here…it will be business as usual for companies and We The People will continue to get the shaft!!
What should have been included in the bill was something akin to: “…no company or entity doing business in Texas shall have any policy or policies that abridge or attempt to diminish or thwart, in any way, the Rights of the Citizens of Texas, nor shall any company or entity attempt to abridge, diminish or thwart in any manner outside the boundaries of Texas that would or have reasonable expectation that their policy or policies may affect the Citizens and/or Businesses of Texas.”
If Texas would initiate a law suit against, say, “fakebook”, “nitwit-tweets”, or possibly “Cooke-a-cula” (yeah, a small play on words, ha!), a first year lawyer would have no problem what-so-ever getting the suit thrown out of court since the real Coke-a-Cola, Facebook and Twitter could show that there IN STATE policies comply with this bill as Texas’ companies and/or entities are not being affected by their “current” policies since all Texas companies or entities could all still export their goods and/or services, OR, sell their products to any and all subdivisions of the U.S., since the bill itself no where mentions Citizens, but ONLY Companies or Entities in Texas. In essence, anyone could come into Texas, do business with whomever they please and still maintain and call for “individual” gun laws that ban all guns in private hands.
IF this scenario IS the case, then something fishy is going on, or the writer of this article did not do their job very well….time will tell.