ECONOMICS
(NRA), or to denounce protestors who demand more gun regulation as “whiny liberals” who do not worship the second amendment, the constitution of the United States, the achievements of the War of Independence and the promotion of individual liberties ever since. And while a Republican-controlled congress and White House are doubtlessly keen on protecting the current state of affairs, Democraticcontrolled branches of government found themselves unable to act due to organizational inertia and regulatory decentralization (gun regulation is, for the most part, a matter of individual stat e legislation). If federal and state legislation don’t move forward, what can the individual citizen do to voice her concern? Perhaps one answer is to make congressional representatives’ office phone ring constantly, or to organize protests to promote gun legislation, just as in the “March For Our Lives” in response to a shooting in Florida earlier this year. Another, more unconventional type of activism in the gun regulation domain is
shareholder activism. Literally anyone with sufficient financial means can acquire shares of a company. In general, except for special types of shares, one share entitles its holder to one vote during proposals put forward by other shareholders during a company’s general assembly. If a proposal is supported by a majority of shareholders, it becomes binding to company management. A group of investors that includes the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary order of nuns and Catholic Health Initiatives has bought stock in Ruger, and other gunmakers such as Smith & Wesson’s, in recent years in a bid to combat deadly gun usage. In the case of Ruger, a nunled resolution forced management to provide an assessment on the violence its products create and how it hurts the country’s stability, successfully passed against the wild resistance of management and despite management’s plea to other shareholders to not support the proposal (by the way, BlackRock, the largest institutional investor by number of shares, voted in favor
of the proposal). As a side effect, it uncovered Ruger management’s ignorant pursuit of profitability without regard for their consequences. But more importantly, it shows hat change can not only come from the top (as in the form of regulation) but also from the bottom (as in shareholder activism). The initiative proved that shareholders are in a special position to influence the debate surrounding gun, not by forcing gun companies to cease business operations, but by pressuring for more awareness, responsibility, and accountability.
23