Operation Choke Point - coming to a LGS near you...

[Greg Langelius *]

Gun Retailers Are Accusing the Admin. of Using Covert Tactic to Combat the Second Amendment

From the FTC home site:

Here is an overview of the three core federal antitrust laws.

The Sherman Act outlaws "every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade," and any "monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize." Long ago, the Supreme Court decided that the Sherman Act does not prohibit every restraint of trade, only those that are unreasonable. For instance, in some sense, an agreement between two individuals to form a partnership restrains trade, but may not do so unreasonably, and thus may be lawful under the antitrust laws. On the other hand, certain acts are considered so harmful to competition that they are almost always illegal. These include plain arrangements among competing individuals or businesses to fix prices, divide markets, or rig bids. These acts are "per se" violations of the Sherman Act; in other words, no defense or justification is allowed.

The penalties for violating the Sherman Act can be severe. Although most enforcement actions are civil, the Sherman Act is also a criminal law, and individuals and businesses that violate it may be prosecuted by the Department of Justice. Criminal prosecutions are typically limited to intentional and clear violations such as when competitors fix prices or rig bids. The Sherman Act imposes criminal penalties of up to $100 million for a corporation and $1 million for an individual, along with up to 10 years in prison. Under federal law, the maximum fine may be increased to twice the amount the conspirators gained from the illegal acts or twice the money lost by the victims of the crime, if either of those amounts is over $100 million.

The Federal Trade Commission Act bans "unfair methods of competition" and "unfair or deceptive acts or practices." The Supreme Court has said that all violations of the Sherman Act also violate the FTC Act. Thus, although the FTC does not technically enforce the Sherman Act, it can bring cases under the FTC Act against the same kinds of activities that violate the Sherman Act. The FTC Act also reaches other practices that harm competition, but that may not fit neatly into categories of conduct formally prohibited by the Sherman Act. Only the FTC brings cases under the FTC Act.

The Clayton Act addresses specific practices that the Sherman Act does not clearly prohibit, such as mergers and interlocking directorates (that is, the same person making business decisions for competing companies). Section 7 of the Clayton Act prohibits mergers and acquisitions where the effect "may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly." As amended by the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936, the Clayton Act also bans certain discriminatory prices, services, and allowances in dealings between merchants. The Clayton Act was amended again in 1976 by the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act to require companies planning large mergers or acquisitions to notify the government of their plans in advance. The Clayton Act also authorizes private parties to sue for triple damages when they have been harmed by conduct that violates either the Sherman or Clayton Act and to obtain a court order prohibiting the anticompetitive practice in the future.

In addition to these federal statutes, most states have antitrust laws that are enforced by state attorneys general or private plaintiffs. Many of these statutes are based on the federal antitrust laws.

 

[Turd in the Pool]

Funny how that works. boa says it denies severing ties with McMillan to cover their ass right after severing ties. Seems to be the new trend. Lie and deny = legit excuse.

I'd say lawsuit but the sensible thing is to flip them the bird on the way to another bank that wants to make some $ ;-)

 

[Greg Langelius *]

My question is what is the NRA doing about this stuff?

Answer Filing reports is a start, but it needs to go a lot further than just that.

Does this involve you?

Wiki describes the program's stated goals, but sidesteps the Gun Control aspects completely. IMHO this highlights how malfeasance can be cloaked in respectability, and how respected sources of information can be subverted to mask the issues.

Hypocrisy is alive and we'll at Justice. Charged with safeguarding Constitutional rights, Justice leads the pack dedicated to denying them. The fox is 'guarding' the henhouse.

Greg

 

[pawprint2]

I'm real sure I'm against price fixing. If it is (and it is) happening in the firearms industry, I'm still against it. America was built by free market/free enterprise, far tooooo much of our industry has "set pricing", competition almost always results in lower pricing/better products etc. I'm also real sure, I'm against the "going after" the gun industry, because it is the gun industry, this is more troubling than price fixing. If on the other hand, the Fed vigorously enforced anti-monopoly/price fixing across the board, I'm all for it.

 

[bogeybrown]

This seems like a much bigger threat to the democratic process and our individual liberties than some second-hand MRAPS. Just sayin.

 

[rlwilson]

We have learned that your Bank of America® credit card information may have been compromised at an undisclosed merchant or service provider. This does not mean fraud has or will occur on your account, but we are taking precautionary steps to help protect your account.

This is what I received from BOA, Bass Pro, after I made a purchase for a rifle. Strange because I have purchased other items form this account but not a firearm.

 

[proneshooter]

Cash is king