I don't think so. I just think that companies are trying to sterilize their client base as much as possible to avoid future media scrutiny. I doubt they give a damn about gun laws (they care about $$$-and that's it), but they want to avoid headlines like "US Bank lends 10 million to Assault Rifle Manufacturer".
If you trust in free market economics (which I only slightly do) someone will rush to fill the void. Pulling out of providing financial instruments for doing business still doesn't affect legislation. Pot in Colorado is a cash only business, and doing very well. The firearms industry is a far cry from cash only.
Good luck. It doesn't have anything to do with the second amendment, and associated opinions..it has to do with risk management.
They're all part of the Federal Reserve system. They're all quasi- government banks.
Agreed, but it's still not U.S. Bank. Those types of inaccuracies drive me crazy. It may not seem important, but it is.
I understand that it's an algorithm for risk assessment, similar to how an insurance company assesses risk. It's nothing personal, but if you have speeding tickets on your record, and have a history of at fault accidents you're going to pay more or be dropped from coverage altogether. It's not that they think you are a bad man, it's that you possess to much risk.
