Highland Park's Gun Scorecard Is Quietly Blacklisting Companies

 

The Highland Park Peace Project has quietly turned a grief‑driven nonprofit into a public pressure machine. What started as a community response to a mass shooting has morphed into a searchable “Gun Accountability Scorecard” that labels companies as either “heroes” or “enablers” based on whether they do business with makers of modern semiautomatic firearms. That is the new development worth watching — and it should make anyone who cares about free markets and due process sit up straight.

 

What the Highland Park Peace Project is doing

The group says it has graded more than 180 companies and recently added roughly 60 previously hidden suppliers to its database. Co‑founder Daniel Perlman has been out in the press framing the effort as a “commercial” strategy: create transparency, then pressure corporations and consumers to “ask for accountability.” In plain language, that means naming law firms, banks, payment platforms, logistics firms and retailers that have any tie to makers of so‑called “assault weapons,” and publicly shaming them until they cut those ties.

How the scorecard works — and why it isn’t just a list

HP3 says it uses public records — financing statements, filings and contracts — to map supply chains. Once a company is labeled an “enabler,” the expectation is clear: face consumer pressure, activist campaigns, or worse. Some companies have quietly asked to be removed. Others have declined to comment. The scorecard is designed to be more than information; it’s a tool to change market behavior without a lawmaker, judge or jury ever being involved.

Why this matters now: supply‑chain pressure and the politics of “debanking”

This tactic arrives at a tense moment in the debate over “debanking” and corporate pressure. Regulators and lawmakers have been wrestling with whether banks can cut off businesses for reputational reasons. Republican senators have grilled regulators about it, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency moved to limit regulators’ use of “reputational risk” as a reason to pressure institutions. The National Shooting Sports Foundation is pushing for laws to stop discriminatory banking practices altogether. Activists, however, are essentially saying: if the law won’t deliver the result we want, we’ll build a market force that will.

What conservatives should do about it

This is not merely a local advocacy project. It is a template for economic coercion: build a database, slap moral labels on companies, and watch reputations, contracts and livelihoods wobble. Conservatives who believe in due process, private property and neutral markets should call this out. Companies wrongly accused deserve a quick rebuttal. Policymakers should make clear that advocacy that crosses into intimidation of lawful businesses will have consequences. If we allow private scorecards to dictate who gets paid or who gets a bank account, we will have traded the rule of law for the rule of the loudest activist.