Companies Bow To Media Pressure, Sever Ties With NRA

Metlife, Hertz, Delta, United and a host of other companies are severing their ties with the NRA its refusal to support another assault weapons ban following the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. But in an unprecedented step first reported by Axios, Bank of America said in a statement that it's reexamining relationships with clients who make AR-15s - the weapon that was used by shooter Nikolas Cruz to murder 16 of his teenage classmates and one adult.


Companies have been bowing to social-media pressure and pulling out of their business partnerships - a trend that started when the First National Bank of Omaha tweeted that it would not be renewing its contract to produce NRA-branded Visa cards. Social media users like Joe Scarborough have been researching which companies have partnerships with the NRA, then tweeting their disapproval, forcing the companies to remove details of their relationship from their websites.



As the Wall Street Journal reports, insurance giants Chubb Ltd. and Metlife, cybersecurity company Symantec Corp. and Enterprise Holdings - owner of the Alamo and National car-rental chains - have said publicly that they will end their partnerships with the NRA.

Companies are reacting partly in response to a social-media movement to pressure or boycott entities with NRA ties, energized by the emotional calls for gun-control action from survivors of the shooting rampage at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., and students around the country. On Friday, the hashtag “#BoycottNRA” was among the top trends on Twitter nationally.


Many of the companies named above tweeted that they would be ending their business relationships with the NRA...





In the aftermath of the shooting, some gun-control advocates have pushed for financial institutions and credit card companies to take action independent of the Republican-controlled Congress, which has repeatedly balked on passing gun control in the wake of mass shootings. Advocates have called on credit card companies to stop processing purchases from gun shops, and for banks to put pressure on clients who manufacture powerful semiautomatic rifles with military features.

Now, Bank of America appears to be slowly moving in that direction, releasing a statement saying it's in the process of engaging its gun manufacturer clients to "understand what they can contribute" to stop these mass shootings...

"We are joining other companies in our industry to examine what we can do to help end the tragedy of mass shootings, and an immediate step we’re taking is to engage the limited number of clients we have that manufacture assault weapons for non-military use to understand what they can contribute to this shared responsibility."

The statement implies that BofA isn't the only major US bank considering whether it should cut off its relationship with gun manufacturers.

According to Axios' interpretation of the statement, BofA is evaluating whether these gun manufacturers fit with its responsible growth strategy.

Reading between the lines: This sounds like Bank of America thinks that servicing these manufacturers may not be consistent with its Responsible Growth strategy, which calls for "addressing the challenges of our time."

Back in 2015, Bank of America and other banks backed away from coal miners because of the damage coal does to the environment.

* * *
Of course, not everybody believes banks should flex their muscles in such a restrictive way. As Mike Krieger pointed out earlier this week, preventing customers from buying guns with their credit cards would be a "deeply misguided" decision...

If we’re looking for some kind of national consensus, it appears to be centered around the view that mental health issues lie at the core of mass shooting events. Any bank CEO foolish enough to start a fight and ban customers from buying what they want to legally purchase could very quickly regret it. Moreover, irrespective of your stance on the issue, it’s dangerous and irresponsible to call for shadow public policy by crooked mega banks.

What do you think? Are these companies overreacting? Or are they doing the responsible thing by listening to their customers and shareholders?


rejected Gaius Frakkin'… Sat, 02/24/2018 - 14:28 Permalink

Gaius,,, Getting a little old you knocking old folks. We're not all alike. Most of this shit is coming from the younger generations and many of them don't like this shit either.

I have personally given up doing business with a lot of companies over this shit only to see a bunch of younger gens with zero pride continue doing business.

The only way to stop any of this is massive protests,,, I don't mean in the streets,,, I mean in the wallet. But Americanus Ignoramous Stupidous won't do anything to cramp their 'style'.

Look at the horrendous airport situation. If most had boycotted them for a month or so then the TSA would not be there today.

In reply to by Gaius Frakkin'…

slicktroutman rejected Sat, 02/24/2018 - 23:04 Permalink

They play right into the psych op, dumb sheep.......they/ sheep have no idea of how they have been manipulated. The large multinational companies don't give a shit about our constitution, or history, all they care about is profits, and right now as is always the case doing the right thing is fuck the NRA, fuck anyone for profit.

In reply to by rejected

Ms No Billy the Poet Sat, 02/24/2018 - 14:18 Permalink

Heads up to people in the NE.  You may have a commie water issue coming.

Those Marxist French global warmist losers up north are dumping 3200 Olympic sized pools worth of raw communist shit into the St. Lawrence river.  It's likely to have a lot of soy and estrogen in it too.  If you drink it you may become a eunuch.

In reply to by Billy the Poet

bshirley1968 carni Sat, 02/24/2018 - 14:49 Permalink

No doubt they will control guns by the means they use to control ridden, monopoly money.

Also, I would like to pose a thought that is beyond the first row of trees in the forest. It has been my contention for quite a while that the NRA has caused more harm than good for the 2nd Amendment. They have been paid to do for us what was our responsibility all along. Why should we pay off congressman and senators to uphold the Constitution? Do you see the precedence that has been set long ago? Now we depend heavily on the NRA to continue to "fight" for us rather than we doing the "fighting" a manner called for by our forefathers.

Don't start with the non-thinking, knuckle dragging bullshit remarks, I have been a member for over 10 years. I think they offer a lot if good programs and services for the shooting community, but lobbying congressional idiots to do their job and stay away from my rights is the people's job....and just like with schools and day cares raising our children, depending on the police for our safety, and depending on government to take care of us, I believe we have weakened ourselves in the long run by depending on the NRA to stand up for us. What happens when their funding is destroyed and they are gone tomorrow? During the Trump presidency? Say it can't happen? Bullshit! It can, easily. Then what?

It's time people demonstrate how much they believe in the 2nd Amendment by doing a little more than sending the NRA $30 a year. Maybe you'll have to quit your "job", stop buying something you always have, lose some friends and family members, quit attending some events, make some real sacrifices, and face some real danger and hardship for a change. Then all that "freedom isn't free", "molon labe", and "cold dead hands" might become a reality rather that a slogan.

Let's face it, when the rubber really does meet the road on the gun we know it will you expect the NRA to take a bullet for your rights or kill someone else over it? If not, the they aren't qualified to be our Front line of defense on this issue. Better start thinking about it and adjusting your life accordingly.

In reply to by carni

OverTheHedge bshirley1968 Sat, 02/24/2018 - 16:23 Permalink

There are two sides to the coin: on the one side, the NRA offers cash to the congressman to make sure that no incursions into the 2nd amendment occur, but on the other side, the congressman threatens to limit the 2nd amendment, unless cash is dispensed. Both sides serve a purpose, which is to chanel cash to the congressman.

Until US politics can remove the insane amounts of bribery, nothing will change. Corruption by design.

In reply to by bshirley1968

lew1024 OverTheHedge Sat, 02/24/2018 - 17:22 Permalink

The history is that the NRA writes all the gun control laws. Merely heavily consulted in the course of the ILA's protecting the 2nd, by the NRA's account.

But reality is that all of the legal breakthroughs of late were done by GOA and 2nd Amendement Foundation.

NRA is republicans who like guns sometimes, and I saw some link lately wrt one of their projects being a CIA cover.

I went 2nd Amendment Foundation years ago, I haven't even voted in NRA elections for years despite a lifetime membership. NRA represents big business, not me.


In reply to by OverTheHedge

Manipuflation bshirley1968 Sat, 02/24/2018 - 17:39 Permalink

+1 for that comment.  To take it is step further what we really need to focus on is ammunition because there is the bottleneck in the whole scheme of things.  Even for those of us who hand-load the issue becomes primers.  You also have to consider how much ammo you need and how much you can carry.  I for one am not running anywhere simply from sheer weight alone. 

I guess the only reason that I am considering an AR-10 is that I already have bulk mil-spec 7.62x51 and I would leave it new in box for my son when he gets old enough.  It's not a bad investment.  Maybe I should get two?  Then the question becomes how much do I want to spend?  How many spare parts should I have on hand?  What are common wear items?  Extra mags, optics slings picatinny rails stuff.  The price goes up fast.

My biggest question out this whole latest flag operation is where the kid got the money to buy and AR platform and have ten other guns.  What other kind of guns did he have?  You are telling me a 19 year old kid had a mini-aresenal of 11 guns and ammo for all of them?  Where did that money come from?  I suppose it is possible to do but I just want to know because I think it is pertinent question to ask.  Did he buy them all legally?  We don't know that.  If he did purchase them legally then it would have all had to have been done in a year or so.  That begs the question, where did the money come from?  I'm not saying that it is not possible, I just want to know. 

In reply to by bshirley1968

nmewn Billy the Poet Sat, 02/24/2018 - 16:39 Permalink

It's the same machining as Baretta. Baretta had the contract for the Brazilian army to produce the Beretta 92 and when the contract expired Taurus took over making it in the same factory on the same machinery in Sao Paulo.

It's the same gun as Baretta makes, same tolerances, I have both and I can't tell them apart when I shoot them. Taurus makes a great gun they really do, I have three.

Two snub 38's and the 9mm.

In reply to by Billy the Poet