Running a successful business as a firearms and gear retailer isn’t easy. There are many pitfalls, even without politics involved. Of course, anti-gun advocates inside and outside the government can make it even harder.

Consequently, most businesses avoid trouble with their bank or financial institution due to the nature of their operations, particularly if they are perceived as non-politically correct. Sadly, many gun-related businesses — from large manufacturers to small local shops—began facing this issue more than a decade ago.

The effort, of course, wasn’t just aimed at making things harder for gun sellers or forcing them out of business. The long-term goal was to make it more difficult for average Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms by reducing the number of retailers available for firearm purchases.

Fortunately, things are starting to improve. With the new administration in power and Republican majorities in both the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives, these discriminatory policies are beginning to be rolled back.

The Problem

The entire situation started during the Obama Administration with Operation Chokepoint. The initiative was launched by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Department of Justice to prevent financial institutions from providing services to certain regulated industries by trying to cut off banking options. This operation initially targeted non-depository lenders (commonly known as payday lenders), but soon extended to sales of ammunition and firearms, tobacco and pharmaceuticals, among other sectors.

The goal of the operation was to pressure banks, third-party payment processors and other financial institutions into closing or denying business accounts for clients that the FDIC labeled as “high risk” or as a “reputational risk.” According to a House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform investigation, the FDIC, “equated legitimate and regulated activities such as coin dealers and firearms and ammunition sales with inherently pernicious or patently illegal activities such as Ponzi schemes, debt consolidation scams and drug paraphernalia.”

“When we set public policy, that is a matter of elected officials, who are accountable to voters, setting that policy,” Mark Oliva, managing director of public affairs for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, said in an exclusive interview with Shooting Sports Retailer. “What we had happening with this banking discrimination was nameless and faceless banking executives making policy decisions for the rest of America, but they were unaccountable to the rest of America. You couldn't vote them out. They were making those decisions from Wall Street that were affecting folks on Main Street, and they were literally running some mom-and-pop shops out of business because they couldn’t get banking services.”

Efforts were made to reverse these policies during the first Trump Administration, and while Operation Chokepoint was essentially discontinued, many financial institutions chose to continue discriminating against businesses linked to the firearms industry. Then, during the Biden Administration, banking executives once again increased pressure on those in non-politically correct industries, again hurting many firearm retailers.  

Finally, Some Relief

Because banks refused to work with businesses in industries they considered politically incorrect, many organizations, including the NSSF, started fighting back against debanking and other antics years ago. The movement began at the state level with legislation called the Firearm Industry Nondiscrimination (FIND) Act. So far, 11 states — Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Montana, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming — have enacted such laws.  

Oklahoma was the latest state to pass a FIND Act, with Gov. Kevin Stitt signing the measure on August 11. Oklahoma’s law requires all large corporations seeking contracts valued at $100,000 or more with the state and its municipalities to certify that they do not have discriminatory policies against firearm industry businesses. Contracts that are certified and later found to be non-compliant with the law will be subject to cancellation.

States have also led efforts to ban certain Merchant Category Codes (MCCs) that negatively impact gun owners and firearm-related businesses. In 2023, the International Organization for Standardization introduced a new MCC for gun purchases. MCCs are used by payment processors like Visa and Mastercard, as well as other financial services companies, to categorize transactions.

Before the specific gun code was created, firearms retailers fell under the MCC for sporting goods stores or miscellaneous retail. When the new code is used, credit card companies and other payment processors can identify that the purchases were firearms, effectively creating a de facto gun registry.

To date, more than 20 states have enacted laws banning the use of firearm-specific MCCs. Arizona lawmakers were the latest to pass such a measure in May 2025. Gov. Katie Hobbs, however, vetoed the legislation and several other pro-gun measures later that month.

Presidential Action

President Trump is no stranger to banking discrimination, as many financial institutions cut ties with him during his 2024 campaign. That led him to address the situation early in his second term.

While speaking at the World Economic Forum 2025 in Davos, Switzerland, the president didn’t hold back about financial institutions discriminating against conservative businesses.

“You and Jamie [JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon] and everybody else, I hope you start opening your banks to conservatives,” President Trump said directly to Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan. “What you’re doing is wrong.” Dimon had testified under oath in a 2021 hearing that  JP Morgan Chase would not lend to manufacturers of Modern Sporting Rifles. 

In June, banking giant Citibank announced that it was reversing its punitive policy that clearly discriminated against those in the firearms industry. In a news item titled “Reinforcing our Commitment to Fair Access to Financial Services,” Citigroup, which owns Citibank, said it appreciates the concerns being raised about “fair access” to banking services and is making changes related to businesses involved with firearms.

“We will update our employee Code of Conduct and our customer-facing Global Financial Access Policy to clearly state that we do not discriminate on the basis of political affiliation in the same way we are clear that we do not discriminate on the basis of other traits such as race and religion,” Citigroup stated. “This will codify what we’ve long practiced, and we will continue to conduct training to ensure compliance.”

In the largest move so far to end banking discrimination, on August 7, the president signed the Executive Order Guaranteeing Free and Fair Banking for All Americans. The order aims to reduce the discrimination by banks and other financial entities against those in the firearms industry, even though they produce legal products sold lawfully.

Referencing Operation Chokepoint and the damage it had caused, the executive order stated: “Financial institutions have engaged in unacceptable practices to restrict law-abiding individuals’ and businesses’ access to financial services on the basis of political or religious beliefs or lawful business activities. Bank regulators have used supervisory scrutiny and other influence over regulated banks to direct or otherwise encourage politicized or unlawful debanking activities.”

Federal Legislation

With Trump’s focus on fair banking, attention now shifts to federal legislation to prevent gun-related companies from being targeted again in the future. After all, President Trump won’t always be in the White House, and Republicans won’t always control both chambers of Congress.

“We were very glad to see President Trump sign that executive order,” said NSSF’s Oliva. “Now, we want to see Congress get behind this and codify these protections so another president can't just reverse it.”

Two measures — Senate Bill 101 and House Resolution 987, both called the Fair Access to Banking Act — are currently being considered in Congress. The bills were introduced by U.S. Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-North Dakota, and U.S. Rep. Andy Barr, R-Kentucky. Both argue that banks should base their lending on objective risk assessments like creditworthiness, rather than making broad decisions that affect entire categories or groups of customers for political reasons.

“When progressives failed at banning these entire industries, what they did instead is they turned to weaponizing banks as sort of a backdoor to carry out their activist goals,” Sen. Cramer said in a press release announcing the measure. “Financial institutions are backed by taxpayers, for crying out loud! They should be obligated to provide services in an unbiased, risk-based manner. The Fair Access to Banking Act ensures that banks provide fair access to services and enacts strict penalties for categorically discriminating against legal industries and individuals.”

Recently, at the time of this writing, U.S. Rep. Andy Barr, R-Kentucky, announced he would introduce legislation to codify Trump’s executive order. The measure, if passed, would prohibit banks from denying services based on political or religious views for legally operating businesses.

After announcing his legislation, Barr received solid backing from House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-Louisiana. 

“This political discrimination — such as we saw with the Obama Administration’s ‘Operation Chokepoint’ — is unlawful, dishonest and decreases trust in our banking institutions,” Scalise said. “Banks should be assessing legitimate financial risk — not the political views of hardworking and lawful individuals or businesses.”

Since President Trump’s executive order has some enforceability, access to banking should be less of an issue for gun-related companies in the coming years. The order requires each relevant Federal banking regulator, to the fullest extent allowed by law, to eliminate the use of reputation risk or similar concepts that could lead to politicized or unlawful debanking, along with any other considerations that could be used to justify such debanking, from their guidance documents, manuals, and other materials (besides existing regulations or materials that require notice-and-comment rulemaking) used to oversee or examine financial institutions under their jurisdiction.