CitiBank Refusing Card Services for Weapons Purchases

[Random8145]

http://www.nssf.org/news/fromBP.cfm?BPseq=704

At another forum, I also saw this:
There are two former Clinton appointees on the board of directors for Citigroup. Robert Rubin the former Secretary of the Treasury and John Deutch the former DCI. I don't know if that has anything to do with it but there are several other names on the board that have given generously to the Clintons and the DNC.

http://www.citigroup.com/citigroup/c...ance/bddir.htm

 

[Herc_Dude]

Good reason to cut up your Citi card if you have one and take your business elsewhere. The best place to hit em is their wallet.

 

[QuagmireMcGuire]

Amazing. If you just read the title of this thread and take it for its explicit words then you'd be outraged. But, after reading the article, it strikes me that there needs to be some clarification.

First, is it Citi-Bank which is doing the denying or one of the companies responsible for monitoring their transactions?

Second, isn't Citi-Merchant just denying gun transactions that take place over the internet because they lack face-to-face dealings? (Yes, in spite of these forms of transactions being legal.)

Granted, it hinders the private buyer who purchases over the internet but it strikes me that the intention of this policy may be to cut-off any potential shady dealings between unauthorized or illegal dealers.

 

[feddoc]

Amazing. If you just read the title of this thread and take it for its explicit words then you'd be outraged. But, after reading the article, it strikes me that there needs to be some clarification.

First, is it Citi-Bank which is doing the denying or one of the companies responsible for monitoring their transactions?

Second, isn't Citi-Merchant just denying gun transactions that take place over the internet because they lack face-to-face dealings? (Yes, in spite of these forms of transactions being legal.)

Granted, it hinders the private buyer who purchases over the internet but it strikes me that the intention of this policy may be to cut-off any potential shady dealings between unauthorized or illegal dealers.

How are they in a position to determine illegal dealers/shady dealings?

 

[Fly Navy]

Granted, it hinders the private buyer who purchases over the internet but it strikes me that the intention of this policy may be to cut-off any potential shady dealings between unauthorized or illegal dealers.

Who the hell cares what their intentions are? Some of the worst things in history started as good intentions.

 

[QuagmireMcGuire]

How are they in a position to determine illegal dealers/shady dealings?

They are in a position which affords them to deny transactions which could lead to illegal dealers and shady dealings. Heck if I know what may be their intentions but I certainly could imagine that reducing liability is one of them.

 

[QuagmireMcGuire]

Who the hell cares what their intentions are? Some of the worst things in history started as good intentions.

I don't disagree with your statements. My only purpose in invoking a possible intent was because the original tone of this thread was that a major credit card company had denied weapons purchases on a potentially arbitrary basis.

 

[Random8145]

I don't disagree with your statements. My only purpose in invoking a possible intent was because the original tone of this thread was that a major credit card company had denied weapons purchases on a potentially arbitrary basis.

Point taken, I should have titled it better.

 

[raptor10]

Amazing. If you just read the title of this thread and take it for its explicit words then you'd be outraged. But, after reading the article, it strikes me that there needs to be some clarification.

One should be as the title is accurate

First, is it Citi-Bank which is doing the denying or one of the companies responsible for monitoring their transactions?

For obvious reasons this would have to be a joint decision.

Second, isn't Citi-Merchant just denying gun transactions that take place over the internet because they lack face-to-face dealings? (Yes, in spite of these forms of transactions being legal.)

No they have cut off all financial services to the company mentioned in the link.

Granted, it hinders the private buyer who purchases over the internet but it strikes me that the intention of this policy may be to cut-off any potential shady dealings between unauthorized or illegal dealers.

This is not directed at private buyers, they are cutting off services to firearms merchants.

 

[raptor10]

I don't disagree with your statements. My only purpose in invoking a possible intent was because the original tone of this thread was that a major credit card company had denied weapons purchases on a potentially arbitrary basis.

Refusing to provide credit card services to merchants because they legally deal products you dislike is arbitrary... but sadly legal.

 

[statesman]

Wells Fargo lost my business a long time ago when the began to refuse to finance gun purchases. My first firearm was a rifle I bought on a same as cash loan at McBrides in ATX. Now Wells Fargo refuses to underwrite the loans for gun purchases.

CitiBank never had my business and they never will.

The beauty of capitalism and liberal republicanism is that I can choose not to give my money to a company full of fascists.

 

[Lawman]

The beauty of capitalism and liberal republicanism is that I can choose not to give my money to a company full of fascists.

On that very note heres an effort to bring a little levity to this thread.

5 Companys the Nazi's gave us


Back to the original topic at hand. A thread about this came up on another forum. One of the members managed to get a responce to his inquiry about this policy. It reads:

"Thank you for your message. The posting at www.nssf.org regarding Citi Merchant Services and First Data Corp. is inaccurate. Further, while we generally do not comment on individual merchant customers, we would like to briefly address the 12/26 letter posted on the web site. Regretfully, that letter did a less than satisfactory job of expressing applicable policies. Those policies are more properly detailed below.

Citi Merchant Services and First Data do process firearms transactions. Our policy restrictions address only the sale of firearms in a non face-to-face environment. Non face-to-face transactions occur when a cardholder is not present in front of a merchant and includes mail order and online purchases. It is our policy not to service merchants that make non face-to-face sales in a number of industries, including firearms.

It is not the policy of Citi Merchant Services or First Data to refuse to process transactions from duly licensed merchants that sell firearms in face-to-face transactions at the point of sale.

The posting also incorrectly states that Robert Tenenbaum is the supervisor when, in fact, he is not."


Yeah a little condesending I think. How about I stop selling vans to Arabs because I cant confirm it wont be used for terrorist activities. Im sure that would fly well....:icon_rage

 

[feddoc]

They are in a position which affords them to deny transactions which could lead to illegal dealers and shady dealings. Heck if I know what may be their intentions but I certainly could imagine that reducing liability is one of them.

Ah, guilt before being proved innocent. You have a very perverted sense of justice. How about if 'they' take your car away from you because you might drive drunk?

 

[JIMC5499]

Ah, guilt before being proved innocent. You have a very perverted sense of justice. How about if 'they' take your car away from you because you might drive drunk?

Don't give them any more ideas. I'm waiting for them to kick in your door when you are drinking at home and arrest you for DUI because you might choose to drive later on.

 

[QuagmireMcGuire]

Ah, guilt before being proved innocent. You have a very perverted sense of justice. How about if 'they' take your car away from you because you might drive drunk?

No, I do not possess a very perverted sense of justice. It is because I have a better understanding of our "justice" system which allows for me to make these distinctions. Companies make their decisions based upon what could happen; if they gather that the liability outweighs the potential profit, they are going to err on the side of caution.

Examples:

A warning label on a box of sleeping pills which states: "Caution- may cause drowsiness."

A warning label on a box of matches which states: "Caution- may catch fire."