Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Financial Privacy Firearm Purchases topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Subcommittee backs Second Amendment Privacy Act limiting financial tracking of gun purchases
Summary
The General Laws Subcommittee gave H.3930 a favorable report after testimony from banking representatives about merchant category codes and liability concerns; the bill would restrict creation or use of payment‑card or financial databases that identify firearm buyers.
The House General Laws Subcommittee voted to report H.3930, titled in testimony the “Second Amendment Privacy Act,” favorably to the full committee after hearing from industry and stakeholder witnesses about how financial networks classify and process firearm‑related purchases.
Sponsor comments and witness testimony described the bill as designed to prevent payment card networks, banks or other entities from creating or using databases that track individual purchases of firearms or ammunition through merchant category codes (MCCs) or other payment‑card transaction flags. Proponents framed the measure as protecting the privacy of lawful gun owners and preventing “financial surveillance” of lawful purchases.
Neil Rashley, general counsel for the South Carolina Bankers Association, testified that banks and card networks are not broadly using such tracking in South Carolina today but warned the committee that an evolving national picture — including actions taken by California and differing state laws — has created compliance challenges for banks that operate in multiple states. Rashley suggested technical language changes the association would prefer, including clarifications around whether a payment card network ‘‘permits’’ or ‘‘requires’’ use of a merchant code and a longer cure period in the attorney general enforcement section. He said the association does not oppose the bill but requested drafting tweaks to address potential migration of liability from card networks to banks.
A representative of the attorney general’s office explained enforcement mechanics in the bill, including an initial cure period (the draft provides 30 days) and potential injunctive relief and civil fines for persistent violations. Committee members asked whether the attorney general’s investigatory language is mandatory or permissive; the AG’s representative said the office uses similar language and did not view it as problematic.
On roll call, members present voted to report H.3930 favorably to the full committee. Testimony and discussion focused on technical language (definition of ‘‘sign’’ and merchant/payment transaction phrasing), merchant category code practices, interstate compliance issues driven by California’s contrasting rules, and the proposed enforcement timeline. The subcommittee did not adopt final drafting amendments on the record; witnesses indicated willingness to work with staff on technical edits as the bill proceeds.
