Louisana state lawmakers are considering a new bill addressing discrimination against the firearms industry. As the anti-gunner crowd seeks to employ methods inside and outside of the government to target gun and ammunition companies, some state lawmakers are pushing back.

Senate Bill 234, introduced by State Sen. Blake Miguez (R-New Iberia), would prohibit companies that discriminate against the firearm and ammunition industries from securing government contracts. The bill specifically aims to ensure that corporations engaging in public contracts over $100,000 do not refuse to do business with, terminate contracts with, or avoid entering into contracts with entities based solely on their involvement with the firearms industry.

The proposed legislation would include manufacturers, retailers, and trade associations related to the industry. It requires any company with which the state does business to provide a written assurance that they do not and will not discriminate against entities in the industry while contracting with the government.

The bill was voluntarily deferred on Monday and will be considered at a later date.

Miguez argued that Louisianans “should not be compelled by their government to fund gun control.”

Others highlighted the effort to target companies in the firearms industry by depriving them of resources. Darren LaSorte, lead state government relations for the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), testified in favor of the bill, arguing that large corporations “are trying to starve us of essential services and ultimately destroy us.”

However, some have spoken out against the bill, arguing that it could harm competition.

Joe Gendron, a lobbyist for the Louisiana Bankers Association, told the committee his organization is concerned with how the measure would be enforced. Miguez has proposed an amendment that would authorize the state attorney general or any local district attorney to void any contracts deemed to be in violation and sue the violating companies for fraud, breach of contract or on any other legal grounds. 

“We do have some concerns about that — putting one person … just to be able to unilaterally make that decision and actually void a contract,” Gendron said. “It’s one thing to not enter a contract. It’s one thing to not renew a contract, but to have one person that can just say, ‘This is null and void by my reading,’ we are concerned about.”

Banks, in particular, have discriminated against the gun industry by refusing to do business with companies and associations that deal with firearms.

Volsky pointed to a number of other companies that have already taken the initiative, including in the aftermath of the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida in 2018 that killed 17 people. First National Bank of Omaha said it would not renew a contract with the NRA to issue a branded Visa card. Enterprise Holdings Inc., the car rental company, announced it would cut off discounts for NRA members, while Allied and North American van lines, the moving service providers, terminated discounts for NRA members.

Citigroup also set restrictions on the sale of firearms by its business customers, becoming the first Wall Street bank to take such a stance.

The bill’s wording is careful not to insinuate that corporations would not be allowed to refuse business with gun companies for reasons other than their business activity. “A company does not discriminate…if it refuses to engage in trade…for any traditional or ordinary business reason that is specific to the customer and not based solely on an entity’s status as a firearm entity,” the bill reads.

The introduction of the bill comes over one month after the state legislature passed permitless carry legislation, which allows Louisianans to carry firearms without a permit or license.