• Mossberg Owners is in the process of upgrading the software. Please bear with us while we transition to the new look and new upgraded software.

Banks Are Going After Gun Commerce

carbinemike

Global Moderator
Staff member
Global Moderator
"Philanthropist"
Now big banking is attacking lawful gun related commerce.

I think we have names for people like this: Mr. Corbat, who called himself “an avid outdoorsman and responsible gun owner,” blah blah blah.

Citigroup Sets Restrictions on Gun Sales by Business Partners
By TIFFANY HSUMARCH 22, 2018
Citigroup is setting restrictions on the sale of firearms by its business customers, making it the first Wall Street bank to take a stance in the divisive nationwide gun control debate.
The new policy, announced Thursday, prohibits the sale of firearms to customers who have not passed a background check or who are younger than 21. It also bars the sale of bump stocks and high-capacity magazines. It would apply to clients who offer credit cards backed by Citigroup or borrow money, use banking services or raise capital through the company.
The rules, which the company described as “common-sense measures,” echo similar restrictions established by some major retailers, like Walmart. But they also represent the boldest such move to emerge from the banking sector.
Since the deadly school shooting in Parkland, Fla., last month, renewed calls for remedies to firearms violence have led to sweeping consumer boycotts and unprecedented moves by corporate America to distance itself from the powerful gun lobby.
Advertisement

But federal lawmakers have taken limited action, and President Trump quickly abandoned a promise to pursue gun control measures, instead promoting proposals backed by the National Rifle Association to arm teachers.

The financial services and investment community was even less engaged, staying mostly quiet on suggestions that it wield its considerable influence over gun merchants to encourage firearms-related changes.
Citigroup’s gun policy has “been a while coming,” its chief executive, Michael L. Corbat, told The New York Times Thursday. acknowledged that “some will find our policy too strict while others will find it too lenient.”
“We don’t pretend that these answers are perfect, but as we looked at the things we thought we could influence, we felt that, working with our clients, we could make a difference,” he said. “Banks serve a societal purpose — we believe our investors want us to do this and be responsible corporate citizens.”
Citigroup said it had begun to inform existing small business and credit card clients and commercial and institutional partners of its plan and would screen future partners using the new requirements.
The bank said it has few gun manufacturing companies as clients, but those it does work with will be asked to provide details about their product and distribution networks.
If business customers decline Citigroup’s restrictions, the bank said it would work with them to “transition their business away.” The company declined to name clients or describe the extent of affected partnerships but said that “real revenue is at risk” if relationships fall through and customers protest. Some of Citigroup’s clients, such as Walmart, already adhere to the new policies.
Citigroup said it does not have the technology nor the legal ability to monitor gun purchases at the payment processing level, but said that the industry is discussing the possibility.

Edward Skyler, an executive vice president at Citigroup who helped craft the policy, wrote in a blog post that the company’s announcement “will invite passion on both sides.” But he stressed that the policies are “not centered on an ideological mission to rid the world of firearms.”
Following various mass shootings, “we have waited for our grief to turn into action and see our nation adopt common-sense measures that would help prevent firearms from getting into the wrong hands,” he wrote. “That action has sadly never come and as the weeks pass from the most recent mass shooting, it appears we remain in the same cycle of tragedy and inaction.”
The company said it would not enforce a specific deadline and instead hopes to have all of its clients on board with the gun restrictions within a few months. Members of its corporate citizenship group, which also monitors whether clients engaged in coal mining and oil drilling are adhering to Citigroup’s environmental standards, will check in regularly on partners’ gun-selling procedures, the company said.

The Citigroup board was supportive of the decision. Mr. Corbat said that, in many recent discussions about the new policy, “there hasn’t been a consensus, but we also haven’t come to this decision in a vacuum.”
Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, U.S. Bank and Bank of America declined to comment on whether they had similar plans in the works.
Alan Elias, a spokesman for Wells Fargo, said in a statement that “any solutions on how to address this epidemic will be complicated.”
“This is why our company believes the best way to make progress on these issues is through the political and legislative process,” he said. “We are engaging our customers that legally manufacture firearms and other stakeholders on what we can do together to promote better gun safety for our communities.”
Diane Zappas, a spokeswoman for PNC Financial Services Group, said that the company, which is “continuing to consider these issues,” has discouraged new loans to gun manufacturers since 2013 and has “very limited exposure” to clients that manufacture AR-15-style rifles like the kind used in the Parkland shooting.
Wall Street is deeply tied to the sprawling, opaque gun industry through pension funds that buy into public gun companies, private equity firms with firearms holdings and financial institutions that back sizable loans to handgun and rifle manufacturers.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
In recent weeks, both Bank of America and the asset manager BlackRock said they had reached out to firearms manufacturers and distributors to ask about their responses to mass shootings, and strategies to stop them.
American Outdoor Brands, the parent company of the Smith & Wesson gun brand, replied to BlackRock in a public letter earlier this month, saying that it respects the national debate about gun safety and shares “the nation’s grief” over the Parkland killings and “the desire to make our communities safer.”
But American Outdoor, whose stock price has been more than halved since the 2016 election, stressed that “the solution is not to take a politically motivated action” that “results in no increase in public safety.”
Last month, the First National Bank of Omaha, which said it would not renew a contract with the National Rifle Association to issue an N.R.A.-branded Visa card, led a quick succession of companies to cut ties with the trade group.
The N.R.A. did not respond to requests for comment.
YouTube said this week that it would start removing videos next month that promote the sale or manufacture of firearms and accessories, especially those that allow simulated automatic firing, like bump stocks.
On March 12, the gun manufacturer Sturm Ruger addressed shareholder concerns in a letter that promised to continue manufacturing and selling semiautomatic firearms, or what the industry refers to as modern sporting rifles.
In the letter, the company said that “succumbing to political pressure to do what is expedient” would fly “in the face of our fiduciary responsibility as stewards of the company for the benefit of shareholders.”
 
I don't have citigroup accounts.

But if I ever had a declined transaction, especially if on a debit card or credit union account where I physically had the funds available to pay for it, I would find a good lawyer who was compentent in banking laws.

I'm pretty certain that banks are required to complete transactions on anything that isn't unlawful. And with damages + interest.

Especially if that bank is fdic insured.
 
I don't have citigroup accounts.

But if I ever had a declined transaction, especially if on a debit card or credit union account where I physically had the funds available to pay for it, I would find a good lawyer who was compentent in banking laws.

I'm pretty certain that banks are required to complete transactions on anything that isn't unlawful. And with damages + interest.

Especially if that bank is fdic insured.
Yeah, that seems like a tough one to implement. What? Compile a list of every gun shop in the USA???

I wouldn’t think they’d have a leg to stand on unless you had signed an agreement with them stating that you understood their policy on firearms purchases.
 
Since this is now multiple banks attacking the gun industry I edited the thread title.

Now we have Bank Of America attacking the gun makers that do their banking with them. They said they just want to do their part to help stop mass school shootings. No, they weighed the pros and cons and have decided that they will make more money this way plus the free publicity. All the big banks are located in the big liberal cities. Those that screamed over wedding cake sales a year ago have been silent as usual on this one.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/10/business/bank-of-america-guns.html
 
I have a feeling the banks will stop this nonsense soon.

Citigroup faces GOP backlash on gun policy

Though a growing number of corporate titans are distancing themselves from firearms, Citi’s decision got under the skin of conservatives in Congress who are trying to fend off new gun control measures. It annoyed Republicans who have supported deregulatory measures that will help the bank, even after the government rescued it from near-collapse during the 2008 Wall Street meltdown.

"The very fact that Citi remains operational is due entirely to the generosity of the American taxpayers," Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) said in a scathing letter to Citigroup CEO Michael Corbat. "Please don’t forget that.”

Republicans are now taking aim at Citigroup’s government contracts and warning that they'll think twice about helping the lender the next time it needs assistance from Congress.

Oops!!!
 
Don't forget First National Bank of Omaha is going to stop offering their "NRA" card. LINK If you can "afford" to, I would tell these offending banks you will be discontinuing your relationship with them and cancelling accounts if they don't remove anti-Constitutional politics from their credit offerings.

Boycotts will work, also!

A couple weeks ago I tweeted a number of offending companies my intent to discontinue business with them if they didn't stop listening to the complaining bitches. Whether or not my counter-protest will do anything, I'm sure it will enrage the indoctrinated pawns speaking for the anti-gun lobby.

AR=America's Rifle

Keep buying/making ammo my brothers and sisters... :)
 
The plot thickens...

GOP Congressmen Target Citibank’s $700 Billion Contract Over ‘Anti-Second Amendment Policies’

Sixteen Republican congressmen are asking the General Services Administration (GSA) to reevaluate a $700 billion contract with Citibank as a result of the the financial institution’s “anti-Second Amendment policies.”

The congressmen, led by Indiana Rep. Todd Rokita, sent a letter to GSA Administrator Emily Murphy on Wednesday, asking her to terminate the contract in response to Citibank’s March announcement restricting its clients participation in gun sales.
 
Here is another smaller player trying to manipulate Ruger:
It stands to reason that gun companies would support the National Rifle Association. The NRA wants to keep as large a pool of people being able to buy guns as possible. That means gun manufacturers would have a much larger base of people to sell their products to. In other words, supporting the NRA is rational self-interest, if nothing else.
However, a bank is threatening Sturm, Ruger & Company over its NRA support.
Amalgamated Bank said it will pull investments from Sturm, Ruger & Company and withhold support for an board member if the gun maker fails to adopt new corporate policies and cut ties with the National Rifle Association. The bank’s chief executive Keith Mestrich described Ruger’s relationship with the NRA as “short-termism” in their resistance to new gun laws.
“They fail to proactively adopt corporate social responsibility efforts commensurate with the lethality of their product, and display hypocrisy in touting adherence to the law while working with the NRA to weaken the law as much as possible,” Mestrich said. He made a fiduciary argument that Amalgamated would have to pull funds because Ruger’s effort “creates significant financial and reputational risks” that will hurt the company and shareholders.
Amalgamated sent a letter, dated April 19, to Ruger’s board urging them to adopt corporate policies for gun makers recommended by gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety. The policies range from endorsing universal background checks and increasing funding for federal regulators and gun violence research to monitoring inventory distribution and investing in gun safety technology (ie smart guns).
The letter also singled out company board member Sandra Froman, who also serves on the NRA’s board. Because of the NRA’s political mission, the bank argued her presence is “a potentially significant conflict of interest.” As shareholders participating in Ruger’s annual meeting on May 9, the bank threatened to withhold support for Froman if the company failed to adopt Everytown’s policies.
What Amalgamated doesn’t get is that Ruger and the NRA share the same fight, if for different reasons.
The endgame of all gun control policies is to eventually restrict gun ownership to just a select few, making it practically impossible for the average citizen to own a gun. That means practically no one would be able to buy Ruger products. They’d be forced to compete for limited government contracts.
Why should Ruger support that?
But let’s say that it never got that far. You know, for the sake of argument. Let’s say Ruger decided to bow down to Amalgamated’s demands. What then?
Well, then Ruger would become a pariah in the firearm industry. Second Amendment advocates, most of whom are already gun owners and gun purchasers, would make it their mission to warn people off from buying Ruger products. “They’ll sell to you, but they won’t support your Second Amendment rights,” we’ll say, and we’ll be right.
This will directly impact their bottom line.
Luckily, Amalgamated probably doesn’t have the juice it’s pretending it does. Amalgamated isn’t listed as one of the top-20 investors in the company, which means any impact it makes is likely fairly minimal. While it’s possible it will pick up more shares to increase its ability to pressure the company, it’s unlikely it’ll do so sufficiently to really have much sway.
In fact, I wonder just how many shares of Ruger it owns, anyway. After all, based on its corporate culture–it’s the largest union-owned bank in the country–and how most of its notable clients are progressive/liberal entities, I’d be surprised to see it having owned many gun stocks prior to Parkland.
Oh, I’ll admit it may well have. Hypocrisy is hardly new in gun grabber circles, after all. But I still have my doubts.
Either way, though, Ruger would be stupid to bow down to these demands. There’s literally no upside for the company to do so, which Amalgamated doesn’t seem to get.
 
The American people should be up in arms, no pun intended. Where does this end. Will the banks decided they want the auto manufacturers to build certain cars or not loan to them ? How about any and all American companies that they don't happen to like, even though they are engaged in the legal manufacture and commerce of their products. Since when do the banks decide they can dictate what is legal and not legal, especially with their track record ?
 
I use the bank with horses and a stagecoach. Chill Wills is up there riding shotgun. :nana: Plus the rodeo just starts here this week.

Imagine if they started to pull that stuff at Wells Fargo, how unpopular it would be.

But all those snowflakes at Citibank?

Let'em call 911.
 
I think Ruger would be a good investment and they shouldn't have trouble getting a new funding source... It is a no-brainer for a gun company to be affiliated with the NRA--they share the same clients/members. I'm hoping a bank NOT doing business with a gun company brings an even better bank to the table that WILL! They will make their money... :)
 
April 23, 2018
Hornady stands up to State of New York
Today, the State of New York did one of the most despicable acts ever perpetrated by any state by asking New York banks, financial institutions and insurance companies to stop doing business with the gun and ammo industry.
While it may not make a difference to New York, Hornady will not knowingly allow our ammunition to be sold to the State of NY or any NY agencies. Their actions are a blatant and disgusting abuse of office and we won’t be associated with a government that acts like that. They should be ashamed.
-Steve Hornady, president of Hornady Manufacturing Company
 
I have purchased two boxes of Hornady ammo over the years. Looks like it's time to start buying more from them. It is a bit more expensive, but that is a price I am willing to pay.
 
Yeah I wonder what the New York police are saying about this law?

I can certainly see a copycat effort by the state of California coming.

The hypocrisy of the situation is really evident in San Francisco right now where they're trying to clean up the streets of all the filthy homeless people. All the really rich people in San Francisco are well-armed and well-guarded and there are a lot of them because it's a very rich town.

But you cannot buy a gun inside the city of San Francisco. You cannot buy ammunition. People who are not rich are having to arm themselves illegally or with substandard weapons.

I have not visited San Francisco in 10 years and it was horrible then. On a sunny touristy day on Market Street you could not help but bump into vagrants and highly dubious "street performers", purposely scaring people in order to elicit contributions from the amused.

The reports since then have been that the condition is worsening. The city which seemed to have a boundless acceptance for drug bums and homeless Drifters is finally tired of smelling the piss on it sidewalk.

With the overarching history of boom and bust business in our past, I can't help thinking that San Francisco might eventually turn into the most regimented and controlled city in California.
 
I have purchased two boxes of Hornady ammo over the years. Looks like it's time to start buying more from them. It is a bit more expensive, but that is a price I am willing to pay.


Start buying some loading equipment. They really did right by me a while back with an auto charge dispenser. They replaced it no questions asked.

Their dies and stuff is well made too.
 
As far as San Francisco is concerned, you can throw in the illegals with the drug bums and drifters as well. I have not been to San Francisco in 10 years and I doubt I will ever return. I see no good reason to.
 
Every other hotel maid, porter & dishwasher in San Francisco is illegal. They protect those people so mightily because it's an economic boon to them.

Anyhow the current mayor is just kind of a placeholder and so nothing real will actually get done. They will juggle some money around so they can afford to clean the streets.

People will get juggled around so it looks like that the problem is being taken care of.

But when the new mayor shows up it will be business as usual.
 
Back
Top