Citi becomes first big bank to press clients to restrict gun sales

[Teppodama]

Yes it's a restrictive policy. It's different from the cake situation - for it to be a parallel, the bakers would have to be saying "We're not selling any wedding cakes, although we will sell sakes for birthday parties or celebratory dinners."

There is no legal obligation that companies sell a product, only that when they sell it they do so within the bounds of the law. There is no law that requires anyone to sell bump stocks or any other firearm accessory. There are laws that prevent discrimination if they choose to sell those accessories.

To take it another example - Imagine that a Walmart in one town sells rifles but the Walmart in the next town over refuses to carry them.

Question #1: Are you arguing that the second Walmart is infringing on 2nd Amendment rights because they refuse to sell rifles while the first Walmart does?

Question #2: Does this mean that every retailer in the 1st town must also carry rifles since the Walmart does?

I would ask for consistency from the parent company on what good and services it offers the public otherwise, yes, I would find it odd that Walmart A is offering a product to its customers that Walmart B isn't. I would ask why? Is it a company policy regarding town B and it's citizens? If so, that sounds rather discriminatory. Much like only selling wedding cakes to heterosexuals. Is it that the rifles simply aren't selling well in town B? That's simply law of demand.

Now, if the policy is one dictated by the law of the town. IE No business other than a licensed firearm business may sell rifles in the jurisdiction of the town I would be more understanding.

In the case of the bank, I would have more respect for them if they had said moving forward on all new partnerships this will be our stance. To enter into a partnership with a business under a specific understanding with a specific set of rules then change the rules of the partnership and impose restrictions specific to that business...well.

 

[TheFirstEMP]

Wait, so a bank is refusing to do business with (what does that entail? Give loans to? Allow customers to swipe their brand of cards?) other businesses based on their opinions that have nothing to do with the actual business act of banking?

Can they be sued for that somehow? Or does this fall under private business can conduct business with whom they wish. Corporations can all force other corps to bend to their opinions on touchy subject matters or be cut out?

Better bake that cake!

 

[nostradumbass]

Good for them I guess. I'd prefer it be done this way where shitty banks fuck themselves over by restricting business than pass some shitty law that makes criminals of people who did nothing wrong.. I didn't realize citigroup had a bunch of illegal gun runners as customers who weren't running background checks.

I guess I'll have to get my loans for back alley gun sales from Chase.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

What limitations have gun owners been "attacked" with. Serious question. Tell me somethings that you would like to do and feel that you should be able to do that you currently cannot. My mind could be changed on this issue

The sign of true property ownership is one's ability to keep, gift, sell, altar, destroy, or otherwise dispose of their private property as they see fit. So long as no one is harmed in the direct commission of any of these tasks, no institution has any reason or justification to bring sanction or infringement against them.

If I wish to sell, gift, alter, or destroy a privately owned firearm, that is no one's business but my own. If one requires a government permission slip before they are allowed to engage in any of these activities, then the government has infringed upon their most basic property rights.

It's at this point in the discussion, that some weak-minded thinkers will bring up other infringement in other areas of life that the government has already committed. The government violating your basic rights is a horrible justification for allowing the government to further violate your rights. Those kind of arguments are more aligned with sophistry than any kind of rhetorical truth.

 

[Teppodama]

You want compromise. Here's some.

I'll give up any rifle magazine over 20rds. That's only one higher than a bog standard CZ pistol.

You take suppressors off the NFA list so I no longer have to pay the tax stamp. Cut the wait down to 1 month rather than the 6 to 8 it currently takes and I'll agree to keeping the more in depth background check and registration of the suppressor.

I'll give up wrist stablizers for "pistol" AR's that are basically an end run around to allow for an SBR without jumping through the NFA hoop.

You leave the AR rifle platform alone. No bans

I'll give up bump stocks and all such modifiers

You leave detachable magazines alone. No bans

You can keep SBR Shotguns on the NFA and add "pistol" variants if you want but you cut the tax stamp in half and half the wait.

Take SBR rifles off the NFA list

Still thinking what I might negotiate with on that one....

 

[panamaican]

I would ask for consistency from the parent company on what good and services it offers the public otherwise, yes, I would find it odd that Walmart A is offering a product to its customers that Walmart B isn't. I would ask why? Is it a company policy regarding town B and it's citizens? If so, that sounds rather discriminatory. Much like only selling wedding cakes to heterosexuals. Is it that the rifles simply aren't selling well in town B? That's simply law of demand.

Now, if the policy is one dictated by the law of the town. IE No business other than a licensed firearm business may sell rifles in the jurisdiction of the town I would be more understanding.

In the case of the bank, I would have more respect for them if they had said moving forward on all new partnerships this will be our stance. To enter into a partnership with a business under a specific understanding with a specific set of rules then change the rules of the partnership and impose restrictions specific to that business...well.

Sure, you'd like consistency. But that's different from a legal infringement. You get the point of my example which is why you introduced a bunch of questions as to why some stores carry one product while others stores don't (a very common retail experience). There's nothing that rises to the level of infringement simply because a company places universal restrictions on what products it will carry. Which is different from selective restrictions on which customers it will sell to. The people in the 2nd town could always go buy rifles in the 1st Walmart without any problems.

As for changing the rules of the partnership, I'm sure both parties have plenty of leeway in how these things are handled and plenty of exit clauses. If someone dislikes Citi's new request, I'm sure they have legal recourse on the contract.

 

[Teppodama]

We simply disagree on this then. I'm fine with kids shooting with their fathers, uncles or another adult but I don't think they should be able to purchase guns period. Partially because there is no way to check every single person to see if they are under psychiatric care of under the influence of antidepressants.

And that's an interesting distinction between how you view them and how I view them. You consider them kids when it comes to guns but apparently not when it comes to voting. Where as I consider them adult enough to own a gun if they're adult enough to vote. To be honest, a vote can be more potentially deadly in the end. See Trump Presidency.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

We simply disagree on this then. I'm fine with kids shooting with their fathers, uncles or another adult but I don't think they should be able to purchase guns period. Partially because there is no way to check every single person to see if they are under psychiatric care of under the influence of antidepressants.

Legally speaking, an 18 year old is no longer a "kid".

That seems to be the Crux of the entire issue.

I personally think that we already have the oldest children in the world in this country. According to the ACA, you're still a child until you're 26.

If you're old enough to protect our country and serve our nation in the military, you're old enough to own a firearm.

If you're old enough to vote, and potentially decide the fate of our Democracy, you're old enough to own a firearm.

If the state deems that you're old enough to make a felony conviction stick if you should decide to live wrong, then you're old enough to own a firearm if you decide to live right.

The only way that your position of raising the firearm purchase age to 21 would be morally or legally consistent, would be if you were to raise the ages of military service, voting rights, and felony convictions.

 

[Teppodama]

Sure, you'd like consistency. But that's different from a legal infringement. You get the point of my example which is why you introduced a bunch of questions as to why some stores carry one product while others stores don't (a very common retail experience). There's nothing that rises to the level of infringement simply because a company places universal restrictions on what products it will carry. Which is different from selective restrictions on which customers it will sell to. The people in the 2nd town could always go buy rifles in the 1st Walmart without any problems.

As for changing the rules of the partnership, I'm sure both parties have plenty of leeway in how these things are handled and plenty of exit clauses. If someone dislikes Citi's new request, I'm sure they have legal recourse on the contract.

From the perspective of simply selling to a customer. Right now, there is no federal law nor any State law outside of I think two that raise the age of rifle ownership to 21. From a Federal standpoint it's an 18yr old's legal right to own a rifle. What Citibank's policy is basically saying is we will deny them that right and expect all business that do business with us to also deny them that right whether it's legal in the state or not, whether it's federally legal or not for them to be able to own a rifle. That very much is denying them their 2nd amendment right.

Now, if every State wishes to raise the age limit that's one thing. If the Federal government wants to raise the age limits that another. If they want to duke it out on which has jurisdiction on that by all means, let them. But this isn't that.

 

[7437]

From the perspective of simply selling to a customer. Right now, there is no federal law nor any State law outside of I think two that raise the age of rifle ownership to 21. From a Federal standpoint it's an 18yr old's legal right to own a rifle. What Citibank's policy is basically saying is we will deny them that right and expect all business that do business with us to also deny them that right whether it's legal in the state or not, whether it's federally legal or not for them to be able to own a rifle. That very much is denying them their 2nd amendment right.

Now, if every State wishes to raise the age limit that's one thing. If the Federal government wants to raise the age limits that another. If they want to duke it out on which has jurisdiction on that by all means, let them. But this isn't that.

CITI isnt denying them that right, they arent even capable of that. CITI cant stop people from making transactions that dont involve CITI. Not a single person will be denied the ability to buy a gun from their decision. they just cant use CITI.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

With all due respect you didn't answer my question. You turned it around to Dems want to do this and that and all this stuff wont work. What do you want to do that you currently cannot was the question.

With all due respect, @oldshadow did mention his desire for a federal carry permit.

You're aware of the problem that concealed carry reciprocity is trying to solve, correct?

 

[HockeyBjj]

Better bake that cake!

The cake wasn’t about who it was for, the cake was about WHAT is was for. They wouldn’t make a wedding cake for a gay wedding, not simply sell a birthday cake to a couple that happens to be gay

In a guns example, it’s a difference of not selling a gun to an 18-20 year old (who) versus not selling a gun you know will be used in a crime (what)

And no, I’m not directly comparing a gay wedding to a crime. I’m showing there’s a difference between choosing to sell a product based off its intended use (correct) and not selling a product simply based on who is trying to buy it (wrong)

 

[Teppodama]

CITI isnt denying them that right, they arent even capable of that. CITI cant stop people from making transactions that dont involve CITI. Not a single person will be denied the ability to buy a gun from their decision. they just cant use CITI.

Which is a service that Citi has no problem offering anyone over the age of 18 despite it being within the current rights of 18yrs olds in most States and by Federal agreement.

 

[Teppodama]

As and aside within my own topic, here's a very interesting read with a very interesting, in my opinion, argument of whether 18yr olds have a constitutional right to guns.

Do 18 Year Olds Have a Constitutional Right to Guns?

Michael C. Dorf
// 2/27/18 // Commentary

Cross-posted from Dorf on Law

Dissenting from the denial of certiorari in Silvester v. Becerra last week, Justice Clarence Thomas lamented that the lower courts have been undermining the Second Amendment by saying they are applying intermediate scrutiny to gun regulations but actually applying something more like the low-level scrutiny of the rational basis test. He thought that the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit committed this sin in its opinion upholding a California law imposing a 10-day waiting period for the purchase of firearms. Justice Thomas also chastised his colleagues for treating the Second Amendment as "a disfavored right."

The idea that the right to possess firearms is "disfavored" anywhere in America would likely be received with puzzlement in most of the world. Indeed, last week's juxtaposition of a Supreme Court justice complaining that firearms are too difficult to obtain with students who survived the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School pleading for the grownups to do something to protect them was arresting.

Beyond the symbolism of Justice Thomas's poorly timed Silvester dissent lies a question of law. What would real intermediate scrutiny of firearms regulations look like? I'll try to answer that question by comparing a classic case of such intermediate scrutiny with a hypothetical challenge to the proposal to raise the minimum age for the purchase of assault rifles to 21.

Exsting federal law sets the minimum age for purchase of a handgun from a licensed dealer at 21, but long guns, including so-called assault rifles like the AR-15, may be purchased at age 18. And 18-year-olds can legally purchase handguns in private sales and at gun shows. One of the proposals that has received widespread support, even (for now) from Donald Trump, would raise the minimum age for purchasing all firearms to 21.

Would a minimum purchase-age of 21 for all firearms survive traditional intermediate scrutiny of the sort that Justice Thomas thinks ought (at least) to apply to firearms restrictions? Or for that matter, suppose someone were to challenge the existing law forbidding 18-20-year-olds but not 21-year-olds from purchasing handguns from licensed dealers?

As it happens, the classic case of intermediate scrutiny involved distinctions between 18-20-year-olds and 21-year-olds. An Oklahoma law set the drinking age for most alcoholic products at 21 but permitted young women to purchase low (up to 3.2%) alcohol beer at 18. The law was challenged as sex discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Applying intermediate scrutiny in Craig v. Boren, the Supreme Court invalidated the Oklahoma law. It did so even though statistical evidence showed that 18-20-year-old males were more than ten times as likely to be arrested for drunk driving than females in the same age group: a rate of 2% for males and .18% for females. That did not satisfy the Court, however, because it meant that Oklahoma was using maleness as a proxy for a tendency to abuse alcohol based on a mere two percent correlation between the trait and the behavior.

Now let's apply that logic to a law distinguishing between 18-20-olds and 21-year-olds. The relevant data show that 18-20-year-olds probably commit slightly fewer violent crimes than the next older age cohort. The data here compare 2016 murder rates for 17-19-year-olds with 20-24-year-olds. Normalized by cohort size, the rates are, respectively, 471 per age year for the younger group and 518 for the older group. Let's call that roughly even. There is certainly nothing like the ten-to-one ratio that was itself insufficient to satisfy intermediate scrutiny in Craig.

But is that the right number? Perhaps not. In 1993, at the peak of the now-thankfully-receded crime wave, the arrest rate for weapons offenses for 18-year-old males was about ten times higher than for the rest of the population. That looks more like the ten-to-one ratio in Craig, although it's actually somewhat lower because the higher number here is based on excluding less violent females. In any event, Craig informs us to look at the absolute rate. In Craig, a two percent arrest rate for drunk driving by 18-20-year-old males was insufficient to satisfy intermediate scrutiny. The data just cited show "only" a one percent arrest rate for the group of 18-20-year-old males for weapons offenses at the peak of the crime wave 25 years ago. Based on the Craig logic, that's clearly not enough of a correlation between the trait and the behavior to satisfy intermediate scrutiny.

Might intermediate scrutiny be stricter for gun regulations than for alcohol regulations based on the greater danger posed by guns? Not really. In 2016 there were about 11,000 gun-related homicides in the US. That same year there werealmost as many (10,497) drunk-driving deaths. Even if we treble the gun-death numbers to account for suicides (some of which would likely be accomplished by other means if guns were less available), we still have threats to public safety from guns and alcohol that are roughly the same order of magnitude.

Meanwhile, 18-21-year-olds are more likely to be victims of violent crime than people in any other age group. Thus, the argument can be made--based on the SCOTUS understanding of the Second Amendment as protecting a right to armed self-defense--that 18-21-year-olds have the greatest need for firearms.

Thus, any way you slice it, application of intermediate scrutiny in the way that Justice Thomas wants it applied would invalidate firearms regulations that even Donald Trump has said he could support. And it's worth remembering that Justice Thomas has only said that at least intermediate scrutiny applies to firearms restrictions. He might actually favor strict scrutiny, as might some of his colleagues.

But maybe this whole line of analysis is improper. In Craig, the state didn't need to distinguish between males and females at all, whereas the government must set some minimum age for firearms purchases. Given that any age line will be arbitrary, perhaps drawing the line at 21 is reasonable. After all, if the line were 18, distinguishing between 18-year-olds and 17-year-olds might fail intermediate scrutiny. And likewise with 16-year-olds, 15-year-olds, etc., until, via the Sorites paradox, infants have a constitutional right to carry firearms. Given that reductio, perhaps 21 is as good a line as 18.

That's not a bad objection, and if it were the only one available to sustain an age limit of 21 for purchasing a firearm, I would hope the courts would accept it. However, I'm not confident that a Court enamored of heightened scrutiny for firearms regulations would buy it

Consider abortion rights, to which Justice Thomas compares Second Amendment rights in his Silvester dissent. The case law permits restrictions on abortion access by minors that would not be permitted for adults, but does not appear to permit a state to define the age of majority for abortion at over 18. I say "appear" because I'm not aware of any state that has attempted to raise the age of majority for abortion. Yet given how aggressive states with pro-life legislatures are with respect to other sorts of abortion restrictions, one would assume that if it were possible to raise the age of majority for abortion and get away with it, some state would have tried to do so.

The approach to abortion appears to reflect a more general assumption within constitutional law that 18 is the age of majority. That explains why the Court, even while recognizing that distinguishing between 18-year-olds and 17-year-olds is not much less arbitrary than distinguishing between 19-year-olds and 18-year-olds, drew the line at 18 in invalidating the death penalty for juveniles in Roper v. Simmons, in which the respondent-defendant was 17 when he committed his crime.

To be sure, the law sometimes draws cutoffs at a higher age, most notably the 21-year-old drinking age. But there is no constitutional right to purchase alcohol, so that age restrictions on drinking that are not otherwise invidious (by using a line such as sex, as in Craig) do not count as invidious. The presumptive age of majority for constitutional rights appears to be 18.

That looks to be especially true for a right to carry firearms. By making the Second Amendment the textual basis for that right, the Court connects it to to militia/militia service, even though Justice Scalia's majority opinion in the Heller case says that the militia purpose of the Second Amendment doesn't limit the right. Traditionally, militia/military service was a political right/duty of citizenship, along with jury service and voting. And the 26th Amendment fixes the minimum voting age at 18, thereby providing a textual basis for fixing the minimum age of political rights at 18. That is also the minimum age for entering the US military without parental consent. (17-year-olds can enter with parental consent).

The key argument that led to the 26th Amendment seems appropriate here too. During the Vietnam War, 18-year-olds and their champions said that if someone is old enough to kill and die for the US, he or she ought to be old enough to vote for the officials who decide whether the country engages in military conflict. Likewise here, one can expect an argument that a person who is old enough to carry a firearm (without parental consent) to defend the US against foreign attackers ought to be old enough to carry a firearm to defend herself, her family members, and her community from domestic attackers.

Lest I be taken to be arguing that age restrictions on firearms should be held unconstitutional, I hasten to add that I set forth the data and arguments above to illustrate how misguided Justice Thomas's view is and to warn those who favor tighter restrictions on guns that the Supreme Court really is a problem. It has become common lately for gun control proponents to say that the chief obstacle isn't the Second Amendment as construed by the Supreme Court but our politics. As I discussed last week, that contention overlooks the symbolic value of the Court's opinions beyond their technical details. Still, I concede and am glad that Heller renders various categories of firearms restrictions permissible as a consequence of Justice Scalia's ipse dixit.

What I mean to show here is that outside of Justice Scalia's stated exceptions, the application of traditional intermediate scrutiny as exemplified by a case like Craig would be a serious constraint on the sorts of firearms regulations that even some Republicans now appear to favor. The problem isn't only Justice Thomas. He's right that a majority of the Court in Heller rejected rational basis scrutiny in favor of something roughly like intermediate scrutiny.

In the short run, the best hope for the SCOTUS permitting what are sometimes called common-sense gun regulations is that the other justices continue to lack the courage of their convictions. In the long run, one must work to elect politicians who will not only enact sensible firearms regulations but will nominate and confirm to future SCOTUS vacancies jurists who see the Court's Second Amendment jurisprudence for the threat to public safety that it is.

-------
Postscript. I am aware that, despite my disclaimers, the arguments set forth above could be used by lawyers promoting gun rights to attack regulations I actually favor. Let me offer three quick responses:

1) As a scholar, I call them as I see them. If others use my work for purposes I disapprove, that's just an occupational hazard.

2) I don't flatter myself that I'm so very clever to have articulated arguments that smart lawyers for gun rights wouldn't themselves come upon.

3) If asked how I might respond to my own arguments were I in court, I would say that the SCOTUS hasn't yet settled on intermediate scrutiny for firearms regulation, but even if it were to do so, there are versions of intermediate scrutiny that are actually much more deferential to regulation than the Craig test. In Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, the Court repeatedly compares the Second Amendment to the First Amendment, so it would make sense to import the First Amendment version of intermediate scrutiny into Second Amendment jurisprudence rather than the tougher Craig test. As UC Davis Law Professor Ash Bhagwat has explained, intermediate scrutiny is quite common in First Amendment cases, and the lower courts--with Supreme Court acquiescence--tend to apply it in a way that mostly sustains challenged regulations. Although Prof. Bhagwat offers normative criticisms of the First Amendment cases, his descriptive analysis (which is still largely accurate eleven years since its publication) provides a strong basis in current case law for resisting Justice Thomas's claim that the lower courts have been misapplying intermediate scrutiny under the Second Amendment; they have been treating the Second Amendment more or less like the First Amendment, which is, after all, what Heller and McDonald appear to demand.

https://takecareblog.com/blog/do-18-year-olds-have-a-constitutional-right-to-guns

 

[7437]

Which is a service that Citi has no problem offering anyone over the age of 18 despite it being within the current rights of 18yrs olds in most States and by Federal agreement.

CITI has not said anything about the age of the retailers. You can be 18 and use a CITI card. They are leaning on the commercial side. Retailers are free to not do business with CITI too.

 

[RockstarChris]

Yes it's a restrictive policy. It's different from the cake situation - for it to be a parallel, the bakers would have to be saying "We're not selling any wedding cakes, although we will sell sakes for birthday parties or celebratory dinners."

There is no legal obligation that companies sell a product, only that when they sell it they do so within the bounds of the law. There is no law that requires anyone to sell bump stocks or any other firearm accessory. There are laws that prevent discrimination if they choose to sell those accessories.

To take it another example - Imagine that a Walmart in one town sells rifles but the Walmart in the next town over refuses to carry them.

Question #1: Are you arguing that the second Walmart is infringing on 2nd Amendment rights because they refuse to sell rifles while the first Walmart does?

Question #2: Does this mean that every retailer in the 1st town must also carry rifles since the Walmart does?

Freedom goes both ways

I agree with you 100%

 

[RockstarChris]

Should the drinking age be 18?

I think 21 is a better age to join the military as the person is more mature. Voting should be lowered to 16

how long did you serve

 

[Throwin Bombs]

I will never interact with Citi bank. They are looking more to save themselves from a lawsuit more than make a political statement but I don't doubt that is the underlying reason.

As far as the high capacity argument, its stupid. Capacity doesn't matter, it takes a matter of seconds to change magazines and drums are often unreliable anyway. There limit on capacity is the reliability on the technology.

 

[Teppodama]

CITI has not said anything about the age of the retailers. You can be 18 and use a CITI card. They are leaning on the commercial side. Retailers are free to not do business with CITI too.

We will not do business with you unless you infringe upon the rights of this group of people. A right they are entitled to baring existing caveats regarding criminal and psychiatric history. You may not purchase a product until you reach a "majority" of our choosing althrough Federally, you are already considered having reached your majority to exercise the right to use the product. Or that a majority of States, for now at least, see as having reached majority to exercise the right.

At the very least, there is an argument for discrimination based on age. If the State and Federal government say you are of sufficient age that you may partake of a right or a product but a business denies it to you tell me how they are not discrimination against you based on age?

As I said earlier, it would be one thing to simply say they will no longer do business with any other business that deals in the buying or selling of firearms and firearm accessories. It's another to tell a business you must be complicit in denying them this service or product despite it being legal by the State and the Feds for them to own and purchase the product or we will no longer do business with you.

 

[7437]

We will not do business with you unless you infringe upon the rights of this group of people. A right they are entitled to baring existing caveats regarding criminal and psychiatric history. You may not purchase a product until you reach a "majority" of our choosing althrough Federally, you are already considered having reached your majority to exercise the right to use the product. Or that a majority of States, for now at least, see as having reached majority to exercise the right.

At the very least, there is an argument for discrimination based on age. If the State and Federal government say you are of sufficient age that you may partake of a right or a product but a business denies it to you tell me how they are not discrimination against you based on age?

As I said earlier, it would be one thing to simply say they will no longer do business with any other business that deals in the buying or selling of firearms and firearm accessories. It's another to tell a business you must be complicit in denying them this service or product despite it being legal by the State and the Feds for them to own and purchase the product or we will no longer do business with you.

I dont know of any cases about a .... second hand discrimination? That would be a pretty interesting case.