The bank that absorbed Seattle-based SeaFirst Bank back in 1983 has allegedly taken an action that might resonate in downtown Seattle, but to the American firearms community it’s a declaration of war, and gun owners are evidently poised to strike back.    Bank of America is alleged to have advised McMillan Fiberglass Stocks that, because it now manufactures firearms, its business is no longer welcome. The bank has denied the allegation. It's quickly becoming a case of "he said/he said," with some gun owners expressing skepticism, others accepting the report as true.    The report sizzled across cyberspace over the weekend has spread Mondays morning to Jim Shepherd’s The Outdoor Wire, and HotAir.com. It has ignited a discussion on GunRightsMedia.com, Northwest Firearms and other forums. A story under my byline also appears in TheGunMag.comMany in the Pacific Northwest who have or had personal and business accounts with SeaFirst (a.k.a. Seattle First National Bank among old-timers) are gun owners.    According to a message posted on Facebook by Kelly D. McMillan, director of operations at the Phoenix-based McMillan Fiberglass Stocks and McMillan Firearms Manufacturing company, a meeting with a Bank of America senior vice president occurred the other day that went like this: McMillan Fiberglass Stocks, McMillan Firearms Manufacturing, McMillan Group International have been collectively banking with Bank of America for 12 years. Today Mr. Ray Fox, Senior Vice President, Market Manager, Business Banking, Global Commercial Banking came to my office. He scheduled the meeting as an “account analysis” meeting in order to evaluate the two lines of credit we have with them. He spent 5 minutes talking about how McMillan has changed in the last 5 years and have become more of a firearms manufacturer than a supplier of accessories.At this point I interrupted him and asked “Can I possible save you some time so that you don’t waste your breath? What you are going to tell me is that because we are in the firearms manufacturing business you no longer what my business.”“That is correct” he says.I replied “That is okay, we will move our accounts as soon as possible. We can find a 2nd Amendment friendly bank that will be glad to have our business. You won’t mind if I tell the NRA, SCI and everyone one I know that BofA is not firearms industry friendly?”“You have to do what you must” he said.“So you are telling me this is a politically motivated decision, is that right?”Mr Fox confirmed that it was. At which point I told him that the meeting was over and there was nothing left for him to say. ___________________________________________ UPDATE: This column reached McMillan Monday morning and he stands by his story. Bank of America has posted this message on its Facebook page: "We want to let you know that we hear your comments and questions regarding one of our customers. While we cannot discuss the details of any individual client we work with, we can assure you the allegations being made here are completely false. Bank of America does not have a policy that prohibits us from banking clients in this industry. In fact, we have numerous, longstanding customers in the industry. "We are also extremely proud of our support of the US military and reject any assertion to the contrary. We count as clients many companies that provide for our nation's defense. We employ thousands of veterans, Guardsmen, and Reservists, and plan to increase our hiring this year."—Bank of America    The Snopes website is also discussing the controversy here. This column's call to Bank of America has not been returned. _________________________________________________________ Shepherd, in Monday morning’s Outdoor Wire, noted that the story has gained plenty of traction. McMillan concluded with this observation, and a warning to customers: I think it is import for all Americans who believe in and support our 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms should know when a business does not support these rights. What you do with that knowledge is up to you. When I don’t agree with a business’ political position I can not in good conscience support them. We will soon no longer be accepting Bank of America credit cards as payment for our products.—Kelly D. McMillan    Over at HotAir.com, there is already a rumbling of boycott. And at PJMedia, columnist Bob Owens has literally taken off the gloves, reminding readers that McMillan is “heavily involved” with the U.S. military, producing stocks for the Marine Corps’ designated sniper rifle, and producing equipment for other branches. He also had this assertion: Bank of America was the recipient of well over 100 billion dollars in federal money. They are also one of just two vendors processing payments for Barack Obama’s 2012 presidential campaign, employing a system that disables safeguards against illegal foreign donations. Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte, North Carolina, is the site of the Democratic Nation Convention in September.—Bob Owens, PJ Media    This story may, or nay not, cause a ripple in high finance circles, but it is certainly causing a ripple effect in the firearms community as more gun owners – and especially the gun rights activists – are learning about this.    Q. Do you have a Bank of America account, and will this story cause you to change banks?   PLEASE FORWARD the link to this column and share with all of your chat lists and forum  

  Microstamping in New York Senate Codes Committee Tuesday   Anti-gun legislators from New York City continue to seek passage of firearms microstamping legislation S. 675B, that would result in banning firearms in the Empire State. The bill's sponsor, Sen. Jose Peralta, filed a Motion to Consider microstamping, which requires the bill to be on the committee agenda. The Senate Codes Committee will address S.675B on Tuesday, March 13 at 10:30 a.m. If microstamping were to become law, firearms manufacturers would be forced to employ a patented, sole-sourced concept that independent studies, including those from the National Academy of Sciences and the University of California at Davis, found to be flawed and easily defeated by criminals. Passage of this bill could result in layoffs of factory workers throughout New York as manufacturers, already being heavily lobbied by tax and gun friendly states, consider moving out of New York. Furthermore, firearms manufacturers could be forced to abandon the New York market altogether rather than spend the astronomical sums of money needed to completely reconfigure their manufacturing and assembly processes. This would directly impact law enforcement, firearms retailers and their law-abiding customers. Please politely contact members of the Senate Codes Committee and urge them to oppose this flawed, easily defeated concept. The last thing New York needs is another failed concept (ballistic imaging) costing tax-payer money, forcing manufacturing jobs out of the state and impacting only lawful firearms owners and retailers. Learn more about microstamping by viewing the NSSF Microstamping Fact Sheet.

Nightmares and Day Dreams by City Girl in Camo *The names listed in this story have been changed to protect those involved. There are a few cardinal rules in gun safety that must always be followed:       1- ALWAYS keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction.      2- ALWAYS treat a gun as if it is loaded.      3- ALWAYS [...] Read more of this post

An Illinois lawmaker wants gun owners to shell out extra taxes in order to finance a new grant program for trauma centers, a move firearms advocacy groups say amounts to a "sin tax" on law-abiding hunters and target shooters.  State Rep. Kelly Cassidy, in a bill introduced earlier this month, proposed a 2 percent surtax on ammunition. The proceeds would go toward a "high-crime trauma center grant fund," which would then send the tax money to trauma centers in "high-crime areas."    The idea is to begin to offset the high cost of gun violence. Mark Walsh, campaign director for the Illinois Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, told FoxNews.com that cost often ends up being shouldered by these urban trauma centers.  "(The money would go) into communities here in Illinois that have been damaged with gun violence," he said. "I think it's a legitimate way to pursue funding."  But Richard Pearson, director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, said the bill effectively saddles gun owners -- hunters, target shooters and those who own firearms for self defense -- as a whole with the cost of gang violence in high-crime areas like Chicago.  "We aren't causing the problem. They are," Pearson said. "It's an attack on firearm owners and their rights. ... They think that because we like to target shoot and hunt, we're bad people, and we should pay for all the ills of the city of Chicago."  Since gun owners in Illinois have to have a special ID card which requires a background check to obtain, Pearson said those committing crimes of gun violence aren't likely to be paying much into the proposed tax fund.  "They're not buying their ammunition (legally). They're not paying any part of the tax. They're getting their stuff illegally," he said.  He estimated a typical box of ammo runs for about $25 in Illinois, meaning the average tax per box would be about 50 cents.  Cassidy, a Democrat who represents a district in the North Side of Chicago, did not return a request for comment.  Her proposal would exempt ammunition purchases by the state's Department of Natural Resources.  All the surtax proceeds from other ammo sales would go toward the grant fund.  The National Rifle Association is also opposed to the bill. Spokeswoman Stephanie Samford said "law-abiding citizens should not be saddled with a tax on ammunition to pay for the acts of violent criminals."  "This sends a message that responsible gun owners are somehow responsible for violent crime, which is certainly not true," she said. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/21/gun-rights-groups-decry-proposed-surtax-on-illinois-ammo-sales/?test=latestnews#ixzz1n81HVJoS