Passed
221 Yea201 Nay9 Not voting1/2 required
HR-1181-119
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Sponsored by Riley Moore (R-WV)
What it does
This bill would prohibit payment card networks (such as Visa, Mastercard, and American Express) from using merchant category codes that single out firearms retailers as a distinct category from general-merchandise or sporting-goods retailers. It would require the Department of Justice to enforce this prohibition and submit annual reports to Congress on related investigations and cases.
Who benefits
Firearms retailers who would no longer be flagged as a distinct merchant category by payment networks. Gun buyers whose purchases at firearms retailers would not be separately identifiable through payment card data. Privacy advocates who oppose financial surveillance of lawful purchases. Small and independent gun shop owners who may have faced potential debanking or payment processing termination based on merchant codes. Payment card networks that would be relieved of pressure to monitor firearms transactions.
Who is hurt
Law enforcement agencies and financial intelligence units that have used merchant category code data to identify suspicious bulk firearms purchases. Banks and payment processors that have voluntarily adopted firearms-specific codes and would be required to discontinue them. Financial compliance programs designed to flag potential straw purchases or trafficking patterns. State and local governments that have encouraged or required financial institutions to track firearms merchant data. Researchers and analysts who use merchant-level transaction data to study firearms purchasing patterns.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that firearms are a constitutionally protected product and that singling out gun retailers with a unique merchant code creates a de facto financial surveillance system targeting lawful purchases. They contend that payment networks began assigning the firearms-specific code (ISO 5999) in 2022 under pressure from activist shareholders and state officials — not Congress — and that this amounts to private-sector enforcement of gun control without legislative authorization or due process. They further argue that the chilling effect on lawful commerce is real: retailers risk losing payment processing access based solely on their product category.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that merchant category codes are a standard financial tool used across industries and that a firearms-specific code gives banks and law enforcement a targeted, low-cost method to detect suspicious purchasing patterns — such as bulk buys preceding mass shootings — that would otherwise go unnoticed. They contend that the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has identified transaction monitoring as a key tool in detecting illegal firearms trafficking, and that prohibiting this categorization would remove a data layer that financial institutions use voluntarily to comply with Bank Secrecy Act obligations. They further argue the bill restricts private businesses from making their own risk-management decisions.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority to regulate payment card networks under the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), as these networks operate in interstate commerce. Post-Loper Bright (2024), any DOJ enforcement rules implementing this statute would face independent judicial scrutiny rather than deference, meaning courts would assess whether DOJ's interpretations of the bill's scope are correct on their own judgment.
Checks and balances
Congress gains authority to dictate how private payment networks categorize merchants; the DOJ enforces the prohibition and reports annually to Congress, providing a legislative oversight check on enforcement activity.
Historical precedent
In 2022, Visa, Mastercard, and American Express announced adoption of a firearms-specific merchant category code (ISO 5999) following pressure from New York and California officials; several states subsequently passed laws either requiring or prohibiting its use, creating a patchwork of conflicting state-level precedents directly analogous to this federal bill.
Passed