PDA

View Full Version : Gun industry sees banks as new threat to 2A



kidicarus13
06-24-2018, 17:40
https://apnews.com/58fe7b8d063648cd88719b2d4753b7e9

GAINESVILLE, Ga. (AP) — With Gary Ramey's fledgling gun-making business taking off in retail stores, he decided to start offering one of his handguns for sale on his website.
That didn't sit well with the company he used to process payments, and they informed him they were dropping his account. Another credit card processing firm told him the same thing: They wouldn't do business with him.
The reason? His business of making firearms violates their policies.

In the wake of high-profile mass shootings, corporate America has been taking a stand against the firearms industry amid a lack of action by lawmakers on gun control. Payment processing firms are limiting transactions, Bank of America stopped providing financing to companies that make AR-style guns, and retailers like Walmart and Dick's Sporting Goods imposed age restrictions on gun purchases.
The moves are lauded by gun-safety advocates but criticized by the gun industry that views them as a backhanded way of undermining the Second Amendment. Gun industry leaders see the backlash as a real threat to their industry and are coming to the conclusion that they need additional protections in Congress to prevent financial retaliation from banks.
"If a few banks say 'No, we're not going to give loans to gun dealers or gun manufacturers', all of a sudden the industry is threatened and the Second Amendment doesn't mean much if there are no guns around," said Michael Hammond, legal counsel for Gun Owners of America. "If you can't make guns, if you can't sell guns, the Second Amendment doesn't mean much."
The issue has already gotten the attention of the Republican who is chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. Sen. Mike Crapo of Idaho sent letters criticizing Bank of America and Citigroup, which decided to restrict sales of firearms by its business customers, over their new gun rules in the wake of the Florida high school shooting in February.
"We should all be concerned if banks like yours seek to replace legislators and policy makers and attempt to manage social policy by limiting access to credit," Crapo wrote to Citigroup's chief executive.
Honor Defense is a small operation with a handful of employees that include Ramey's son and his wife who work out of a non-descript building in a Georgia office park north of Atlanta. In 2016, its first year, it sold 7,500 firearms. Its products — handcrafted 9mm handguns that come in a variety of colors — can now be found in more than 1,000 stores.
When Ramey noticed that neither Stripe nor Intuit would process payments through his site, he submitted a complaint with Georgia's attorney general's office, counting on help from a state law that prohibits discrimination by financial service firms against the gun industry. But the state rejected it, saying that credit card processing is not considered a financial service under state law.
He views the credit card issue as companies "infusing politics into business."
"We're just a small company trying to survive here," Ramey said. "It's hard enough competing with Smith & Wesson, Ruger and Sig Sauer."
The financial industry actions came amid a broader pushback by corporate America in the aftermath of the Florida shooting. Delta and United Airlines stopped offering discounted fares to NRA members, as did the Hertz, Alamo and National rental car companies. First National Bank of Omaha, one of the nation's largest privately held banks, decided not to renew a co-branded Visa credit card with the NRA.
Walmart and Dick's Sporting Goods both decided they would no longer sell "assault weapons" or firearms to people under age 21. REI, an outdoor-gear shop that doesn't sell firearms, joined in and decided it would stop selling such items as ski goggles, water bottles and bike helmets made by companies whose parent firm, Vista Outdoor, manufactures ammunition and AR-style long guns.
There's been election-year response from some lawmakers, notably in Georgia where Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle, who is running for governor, led a move in the Legislature to kill a tax break on jet fuel to punish Atlanta-based Delta over its NRA actions. The move cost the airline an estimated $40 million.
Gun-control advocates have applauded the efforts, saying it demonstrates responsible leadership at a time of paralysis in government. Experts say it's a sign that the business world views wading into the gun debate as not at all risky — and, in fact, potentially beneficial to their brand.
"Companies by and large avoid these issues like the plague and they only get involved — whether they're credit card companies or airlines — when they feel like doing nothing is as bad as doing something and they feel completely stuck," said Timothy D. Lytton, professor at Georgia State University's College of Law and author of "Suing the Gun Industry: A Battle at the Crossroads of Gun Control and Mass Torts."
The gun industry acknowledges that there's nothing requiring companies from doing business with gun manufacturers or dealers. Monthly reports from the federal government show background checks to purchase a firearm are up over last year so far, so the early actions apparently have not put a dent in sales.
Still, the industry believes it needs stronger laws against financial retaliation in the future.
"We may have to seek legislation to make sure it can't be done and that you can't discriminate against individuals from lawful exercise of a constitutional right," said Larry Keane, senior vice president and legal counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which represents gunmakers. "Imagine if banks were to say you can't purchase books or certain books aren't acceptable. That would be problematic and I don't think anyone would stand for that kind of activity by the banking industry."

def90
06-24-2018, 19:07
Well, if you want businesses to be able to decide who they do business with as in decline baking a cake for a gay wedding then you have to accept that banks have a right to decide who they will do business with as well. In the end if financing gun related businesses is a money maker someone will step in and fill that void.

Skip
06-24-2018, 19:32
[snip]

In the end if financing gun related businesses is a money maker someone will step in and fill that void.

There is a big opportunity here for funds transfer (scheduled availability) and escrow services with an FFL network. This is the "weak link" of GB and other websites.

I really don't like using PayPal, for example, yet a lot of the M1903A3 parts I'm chasing down have been on eBay. And I end up there after checking everywhere else I know of. So in spite of their anti-gun stance, they are doing a lot of gun business.

Bailey Guns
06-24-2018, 22:07
Well, if you want businesses to be able to decide who they do business with as in decline baking a cake for a gay wedding then you have to accept that banks have a right to decide who they will do business with as well. In the end if financing gun related businesses is a money maker someone will step in and fill that void.

Someone did, several years ago. A company called GunPal. They ripped off a lot of people.

Irving
06-24-2018, 23:07
It is frustrating to have a company interject itself into an area of society outside of it's business. I find this to be just as offensive as hotels banning guns from their premises. The purpose of the hotel industry is to provide an alternative to home for people whom are traveling, and adding their own restrictions is a slap in the face to their very existence. It is exactly the same thing for lending companies. They exist to lend money. If they feel like they can choose to deny lending to areas of business based on anything other then a risk profile, then they can only do so because their other customers are paying beyond market prices and they can afford to eliminate an entire sector of their business. Sounds like they are charging everyone too much to me.

Madeinhb
06-25-2018, 06:54
It is frustrating to have a company interject itself into an area of society outside of it's business. I find this to be just as offensive as hotels baking guns from their permis. The purpose of the hotel industry is to provide an alternative to home for people whom are traveling, and adding their own restrictions is a also in the face to their very existence. It is exactly the same thing for lending companies. They exist to lend money. If they feel like they can choose to deny lending to areas of business based on anything other then a risk profile, then they can only do so because their other customers are paying bring market prices and they can afford to eliminate an entire sector of their business. Sounds like they are charging everyone too much to me.

But as Def90 stated above, we can't be hypocritical. We can't be on the side of a baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple and then get pissed at banks here. Both are chosing who and who not to do business with.

Squeeze
06-25-2018, 07:07
But as Def90 stated above, we can't be hypocritical. We can't be on the side of a baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple and then get pissed at banks here. Both are chosing who and who not to do business with.

Yep. At the end of the day, there is money to be made in the gun industry. There are banks and financial companies out there who don't give 2 shits where the dollar comes from because it makes them money. These banks that are telling firearm businesses to go away are only hurting themselves. Many times gun owners have taken their business elsewhere because we don't agree with that company's policy.

Irving
06-25-2018, 08:50
I'm wasn't suggesting they shouldn't be allowed to do that by law.

Bailey Guns
06-25-2018, 08:50
Except it's not the same as the Baker. The Baker didn't refuse to do business with the gay couple and even offered alternatives. His objections were faith based. That's not the case at all with the card processing company. The company is refusing to offer a service and not offering alternatives. And the refusal isn't based on religious beliefs.

These companies are basically using policy in lieu of legislation. The Baker did no such thing.

Irving
06-25-2018, 08:57
There is the element of not all banks providing all of the same services, but that also does not apply here as the gun business does not have any unique banking requirements.

I'd say the baker example IS the same thing, it just doesn't seem like it because they aren't a national chain with a significant share of the market. It doesn't matter if they offered alternative services either. If I need credit card processing, and the bank tells me no, but offers me a free personal checking account still, that's not at all an alternative to what I'm looking for and more of an insult at that point.

Bailey Guns
06-25-2018, 09:10
The baker offered the item wanted just without a specific message. The processing company isn't doing that. Not to mention the court really didn't side with the baker other than to say he was wronged and treated unfairly by a govt entity. I don't see it being the same at all.

Irving
06-25-2018, 11:11
I agree that the courts didn't really side with the baker either.

Bailey Guns
06-25-2018, 11:45
Basically, if the processing companies were a baker, they're telling the customer, "We don't approve of your lifestyle, we don't believe what you're doing is right and we aren't gong to serve you. Period."

The real baker never said any such thing.

Gman
06-25-2018, 12:23
I find this to be just as offensive as hotels baking guns from their permis.
My brain jumped the tracks reading that.

You stuck on a mobile device that likes to choose your words for you?

My argument would follow BG's logic.

I guess the gun business is the new "don't ask, don't tell". It'll be a great day when gun businesses will be able to come out of the closet and be treated as heroes.

Sent from my electronic leash using Tapatalk

izzy
06-25-2018, 12:34
This sucks if you're a firearm related business I guess but I'm of the opinion "we have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason". I may not agree with your reason and I may happen to be "anyone" but that's your right to turn business away. Also you don't owe me a damn thing before, during or after you decide to turn me away.

DenverGP
06-25-2018, 12:56
This sucks if you're a firearm related business I guess but I'm of the opinion "we have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason".

That's fine until a few companies have the market locked up, and by refusing to process credit card payments for a business, can effectively shut down that business.

This isn't a baker / retail store where the customer can just go to another one a few blocks away.

Skip
06-25-2018, 13:01
The banks aren't private businesses. They are taxpayer backed/insured and after 2007 should really be taxpayer owned. Lots of background on what the Fed has done over the last 10 years to know but the bottom line is most of these major global banks would have been shuttered if they were truly private businesses.

The singular and exceptional denial of an endorsed special people cake did not create the denial of an accommodation. That accommodation was found in ample supply and the precious gays knew that walking the door (which is why they chose that specific door).

The big banks are conspiring together to deny the widespread exercising of a Constitutionally protected right.

In order to do so, they are suggesting that allowing a customer to use his own funds is an endorsement of behavior. Strange selection of morality for banks to uphold as there are countless illegal (some insidious) behaviors that the industry could help eliminate but has refused citing confidentiality.

Irving
06-25-2018, 13:03
Basically, if the processing companies were a baker, they're telling the customer, "We don't approve of your lifestyle, we don't believe what you're doing is right and we aren't gong to serve you. Period."

The real baker never said any such thing.

He said exactly that, regarding a wedding cake. It doesn't matter if he offered other services. 1,000 cupcakes, even free ones, are not the same product as a wedding cake.

I'm willing to bet that these banks are not also canceling these business owner's personal accounts, so the same argument could be made that they aren't being denied service. That's just a distraction to the fact that they are unwilling to provide service to a business just because they don't like said business.

Irving
06-25-2018, 13:07
That's fine until a few companies have the market locked up, and by refusing to process credit card payments for a business, can effectively shut down that business.

This isn't a baker / retail store where the customer can just go to another one a few blocks away.

But they can just go find another bank. I started a business that most banks won't touch, so I had to go find one that would service my needs.

Similarly, this may hurt many businesses, but it should only kill poor businesses. The weed industry hasn't been allowed to use banks since it started and it has only grown.

FromMyColdDeadHand
06-25-2018, 14:05
If you want to set the analogy right, the Wedding cake is the branded credit cards that banks offered and the transaction handling is the stock cupcakes. I don't think that anyone is saying that the banks have to offer NRA cards, or give discounts like HERTZ and Delta. The companies handling the transactions and going out looking for gun companies would be like the cake guy going on customers Facebook pages and then not letting them in the store.

As to the 'right to refuse', that is pretty much dead since the 1970s. The asymmetrical nature of the protection of groups means that only left aligned interests are protected. The analogy really breaks down you look at the narrow and personal religious baker case and the broad and impersonal bank case.

Aloha_Shooter
06-25-2018, 14:09
Philosophically, I'm with the companies that exercise their rights to not do business with someone they don't approve of. This right has been trampled on by the Left in recent decades. I think the Red Hen had as much right to refuse to do business with Sarah Sanders as most of us thought a gun store had a right to refuse to do business with an Obama voter. Having said that, when a business takes a stance like that, they should be prepared to suffer the public consequences of such a decision -- I'm sure the cake baker had no problem with not being patronized for homosexual marriages.

There IS a difference, however, when the business in question is participating as part of the national financial system and their objection isn't based on some danger to their fiduciary responsibilities (i.e., there's no prospect of fraud). To my mind, the fact that these banks are covered by FDIC and get to participate in the Federal Reserve system and national electronic transactions means they have a responsibility to process transactions that aren't suspicious. This would be like the municipal utilities deciding you don't get electrical service or water or sewage because they don't like the religion you observe (or don't).

izzy
06-25-2018, 15:34
I wasn't talking about what's allowed or within the law. Was trying to say my opinion about how I feel this should work for any business. In this specific case I think there is clearly a market for financing the firearms industry, as was mentioned before someone will scoop up that business eventually.

Aloha_Shooter
06-25-2018, 16:32
izzy, I would hope there's an opportunity here, just like there was an opportunity in Florida to open a bar or night club or restaurant catering to non-smokers before they passed rigorous anti-smoking legislation.

UPDATE on the Red Hen: Sounds like the owner following Sanders' party over to another restaurant to protest and heckle them. That is NOT kosher. It's one thing to not want to do business with someone you dislike, it's a whole other thing to stalk and harass them.

Gman
06-25-2018, 17:14
The right creates so much divisiveness, don't ya'know. Just give the left everything they want and say what they want you to say and these problems wouldn't exist.

But no...politicize all the things.

Sent from my electronic leash using Tapatalk

OtterbatHellcat
06-25-2018, 22:11
Dayum.

He ignores me, but I like this guy.

Gman
06-25-2018, 22:41
That's a real comparison.

[LOL]

Justin
06-27-2018, 09:00
I wasn't talking about what's allowed or within the law. Was trying to say my opinion about how I feel this should work for any business. In this specific case I think there is clearly a market for financing the firearms industry, as was mentioned before someone will scoop up that business eventually.

Financial services is an extremely large industry locked up by a handful of top players who've locked most of the system down via lobbying and rent seeking. Sorry, but there's no way some scrappy little financial startup is going to be able to bootstrap a competitive service without having Uber-levels of venture capital money to burn on lawyers and analysts just to deal with compliance, let alone the not-insignificant challenges of acting as a 3rd party money handler with a reliability record of, say, Visa.

The closest you're going to get is utilizing cryptocurrency as an exchange medium.