Financial restrictions by the bigots

Of course you knew PayPal won’t handle transactions for “certain firearms, firearm parts or accessories, ammunition, weapons or knives“, right?

You probably knew Google has issues with guns too.

Here is a story I don’t think I have told here before:

Years ago, when I first created Modern Ballistics, I tried to get a merchant account for processing credit cards. I had one a few years earlier when was selling software to software developers instead of gun owners and I figured it wouldn’t be a problem. I sent in my application and to my surprise they turned me down. At first they wouldn’t tell me why. But after much calling and pestering them they finally told me it was because of my product. I carefully read through all their fine print and couldn’t find where there was anything wrong with my product according to their published rules. I told them I didn’t understand, what is wrong with my product? The most I could get out of them was that I could submit my application again if I wanted but it probably wouldn’t make any difference.

Now via Sebastian and NSSF I find out:

Citi Merchant Services and First Data Corp. are refusing to process any credit card transactions between federally licensed firearms retailers, distributors and manufacturers — a move which will severely limit available inventory of firearms and ammunition to military, law enforcement and law-abiding Americans.

The first company to be affected by this decision appears to be firearms distributor CDNN Sports Inc.

“We were contacted recently by First Data/Citi Merchant Services by a June Rivera-Mantilla stating that we were terminated and funds were being seized for selling firearms in a non-face-to-face transaction,” said Charlie Crawford, president of CDNN Sports Inc. “Although perfectly legal, we were also informed that no transactions would be processed in the future, even for non-firearms. I find this very frightening.”

To voice your concern to Citi Merchant Services and First Data Corp., please contact June Rivera-Mantilla at 631-683-7734 or her supervisor Robert Tenenbaum at 631-683-6570.

Read the letter, they claim a violation of the law but yet apparently don’t bother to turn them into law enforcement. Just like some experiences I have had (above and with PNNL) if they want to get rid of you they will just make stuff up that is at best half true. They don’t need or want to know the truth, they just want to get rid of you. It’s very tough to win against people like that. Just like literacy tests for voting, when tested none of the blacks could read the daily newspaper, hence they failed the state approved test. Never mind the newspaper given to them was printed in Chinese. Technically they can get away with it but it’s still not right.

If they were refusing to do business with people with a certain skin color, sexual orientation, or religion this would be on the front page of all the newspapers. But it isn’t. And its because we are just “gun-ni**ers” and it is socially acceptable to the elites to treat us like this.


6 thoughts on “Financial restrictions by the bigots

  1. Joe;

    I’ve always maintained that, unlike the First where the proscription is lain solely on Congress (“Congress shall make no law…”) that the Second Amendment proscription is absolute. It applies not only to the Federal government, but also to state and local governments, and private entities as well. (“The right of the people…shall not be infringed.”) I read that to mean that nobody may infringe your RKBA. People do infringe all the time, but they do it by main force and legal ledgerdemain.

    So what kind of a test case might it be to strike at some entity like this, which is palpably engaged in a civil rights infringement? Not to force them to do that which they do not, but to forbid them associations where they take advantage of a “public accomodation” or “utility” (read: rent-seeker) description of their small-c constitution.

    You don’t want to engage in constitutionally-protected commerce? Fine. No problem. However: you may no longer do business with the Federal Government. Or the Federal Reserve. Or the Treasury (except, of course, to pay taxes).

    Innit fun building castles in the air? ( ::grin:: )


  2. It applies not only to the Federal government, but also to state and local governments, and private entities as well.

    I agree about it applying to federal and state government, but constitutional rights are restrains placed on government in order to protect the inherent rights of individuals. Individuals have a natural right to free association; do you believe the government has a right to come in to interfere with that right because no one, not even private parties, can interfere with your right to bear arms?

  3. Yeah, Joe. That was where I was heading, but I got a little silly before I made it to Point B, so to speak.

    Sebastian — I agree. I like to believe that, if you find a situation where it appears that individual rights conflict, you have not accurately defined the situation, or someone is acting the aggressor.

    I would say offhand that private property rights should trump RKBA, but that that should not extend to someone providing a public accomodation. If restauranteurs are not to be permitted to descriminate on the basis of certain choice externalities, then neither should they be permitted to infringe on civil rights.

    I don’t assert that I see that as a bright line — I’m highly uncomfortable with the whole public accomodation concept.

    However, in areas where there is a government-granted barrier to entry — not quite a monopoly, but neither a free market — in a particular market segment, such as with financial institutions, or where there is strict Federal oversight, again, such as in financial institutions — the infringement of civil rights ought to be strictly verboten. Just as a bank cannot discriminate on the basis of race, nor should it be permitted to infringe upon RKBA.

    Needless to say, I think the line ought to be pushed a whole lot farther toward favoring the individual than where it is now.


  4. Citi and First Data are in the process of creating a new market niche– RKBA-friendly banking services.

    Many insurance companies treat gun ranges in much the same way as these banks. (Ask me how I know– I was once the president of a gun club) Answer? The NRA has stepped in to work with more open-minded companies to provide affordable insurance for gun clubs.

    If these anti-freedom banks want to limit their customer base, I’m sure there are other banks who will be glad to have that business handed to them.

    Keep up the pressure. If you have accounts with these companies, you might want to consider taking your business elsewhere.

    When we were signing up for merchant services, I specifically asked them if they were going to get cold feet due to the fact that we sell gun accessories. They said absolutely not. Same with our web host. Same with our landlords here at the business park (the latter are pro RKBA). So far, so good.

    It is my personal mission to be sure no one in my sphere is allowed to feel comfortable in my presence while railing against a human right of any kind. Some call me an asshole. I say that if you want respect, you can easily earn it by coming down on the side of freedom.

  5. By pure coincidence, I have just terminated a relationship with First Data. Just another reason — beyond the purely business reasons.


Comments are closed.