For most conservation organizations, selecting a credit card processor is viewed as a routine business decision. Staff compare transaction fees, customer service, software integration, and the speed at which deposits arrive at the bank. Rarely does anyone ask a more fundamental question: Does the company processing our donations and fundraising revenue actually support—or actively oppose—the community that makes our conservation mission possible? Increasingly, that oversight would carry consequences far beyond a few basis points in processing fees.
Across America, the camo-coalition of hunter-funded conservation organizations, and thousands of local conservation groups depend heavily on firearms-based fundraising. Banquets featuring gun raffles, live auctions, sponsor tables, and firearm giveaways generate millions of dollars each year, which ultimately fund habitat restoration, wildlife research, youth hunting programs, conservation education, and expanded public access.
Yet some of the nation's largest payment processors either prohibit firearm-related commerce outright or maintain policies that many within the firearms industry view as openly hostile to lawful gun ownership. The irony is hard to miss. Conservation organizations often raise money by auctioning and raffling firearms while simultaneously paying transaction fees to companies that refuse to process gun sales themselves.
The restrictions are hardly a secret. PayPal's Acceptable Use Policy prohibits transactions involving firearms, ammunition, and many firearm parts and accessories. Square's Terms of Service prohibit merchants from using its platform to sell firearms, firearm parts, ammunition, or weapons. GoDaddy Payments similarly bars merchants selling firearms and ammunition from using its payment services. These are published corporate policies, not obscure provisions hidden deep inside legal agreements.
For organizations whose fundraising model depends on firearms, they represent a fundamental mismatch that many nonprofits never discover until after they've signed a processing agreement.
Industry consultants who specialize in firearm-related businesses have long warned that this risk often isn't apparent at the beginning of the relationship. Organizations may successfully open an account, process transactions for months—or even years—and only later discover that some aspect of their fundraising violates the processor's acceptable use policy.
Depending on the circumstances, processors may review the account, suspend processing privileges, terminate the relationship, or temporarily hold funds while an investigation is completed. Every situation is different, but the possibility alone should concern organizations that rely on time-sensitive fundraising events.
Picture entering the busiest fundraising banquet season only to discover that credit card processing has been interrupted halfway through this critical period or that auction proceeds have suddenly been placed on hold. The financial disruption could be substantial, particularly for organizations that depend on a successful banquet season to finance conservation work throughout the coming year.
The issue goes beyond processing policies and into an increasingly contentious debate over financial privacy. In 2022, the International Organization for Standardization approved a new Merchant Category Code (MCC) for firearm and ammunition retailers. Merchant Category Codes are commonly used throughout the payment industry to identify the type of business where a purchase occurs, whether it's a grocery store, hotel, airline, sporting goods retailer, or restaurant.
Supporters argued that a firearms-specific code could help financial institutions identify unusual purchasing patterns that might warrant additional review. Opponents, including the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the NRA, and numerous state attorneys general, viewed the decision far differently, warning that identifying purchases made at firearm retailers could become the foundation for what they describe as a de facto registry of lawful firearm-related transactions.
It is important to understand both the capabilities and limitations of the merchant category code. The code identifies the type of merchant where the transaction occurred; it does not identify the specific product purchased. Someone buying a shotgun, a gun safe, a pair of binoculars, or even hunting apparel from the same retailer would generate the identical merchant code.
Visa itself has emphasized that the code does not reveal individual products purchased. Even so, many Second Amendment advocates argue that identifying lawful transactions at firearm retailers represents an unnecessary intrusion into the privacy of gun owners.
Not surprisingly, state governments have taken sharply different approaches. Colorado, California, and New York have enacted laws requiring implementation of the firearm merchant category code, while Texas, Florida, Montana, Idaho, Mississippi, West Virginia, and several other states have passed laws prohibiting or restricting its use, arguing that it infringes upon the privacy rights of lawful gun owners. The resulting patchwork of conflicting state laws has created an increasingly complicated compliance environment for financial institutions and payment processors operating nationwide.
For conservation organizations, however, the question may be considerably more straightforward. Does it make sense for organizations funded almost entirely by hunters, sport shooters, and firearm owners to entrust their fundraising operations to companies whose published policies either prohibit firearm-related commerce or place it in a higher-risk category?
Increasingly, specialized payment processors have emerged specifically to serve firearm retailers, hunting organizations, conservation nonprofits, and other Second Amendment-related businesses. These firms have built banking relationships designed to accommodate lawful firearm commerce rather than treating it as an exception or a compliance headache.
That does not automatically make every specialized processor the right choice, nor does it mean every mainstream processor poses an unacceptable risk. Every nonprofit should conduct its own due diligence and carefully evaluate the policies, stability, and long-term compatibility of any financial partner.
But conservation leaders would be wise to ask questions that too often never make it onto the agenda. Does our processor explicitly allow firearm-related fundraising? Have we reviewed its current acceptable use policy? Could our fundraising activities conflict with the processor's published terms? If a problem arose during banquet season, would our processor stand behind us—or determine that our organization no longer fits its business model?
Too often, nonprofits spend countless hours negotiating fractions of a percentage point in processing fees while overlooking the much larger issue of philosophical and operational alignment. In today's increasingly polarized financial marketplace, the lowest processing rate may ultimately prove to be the most expensive decision an organization can make.
For conservation groups whose missions have been sustained for generations by hunters, sport shooters, and firearm owners, choosing a payment processor is no longer simply a financial decision. It is, increasingly, a statement about who they choose to support—and who they trust to support them in return.
– Chris Dorsey
Chris Dorsey is a 30-year media veteran and conservation thought leader who is the founding partner of Dorsey Pictures, a Global 100 Production Studio, and Mission Partners Entertainment Group, a leading IMAX/giant screen natural history producer.