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

[spin]

Yes, and I’m sorry that I don’t understand what the go between a bank and retail client is that would be cut off if they don’t give in to the bank’s demands on firearm restrictions

I’m an engineer. I avoid the business/money side of things as much as possible

You have to meet the demands of anyone you do business with. It's called terms of service.

This bank is changing its terms of service to any retailers that sell guns.

The changes are mild

They can only lose business by doing this

And they're willing to take that hit.

It's barely noteworthy for anyone but those clients

 

[VivaRevolution]

FUCK THE BANKS!

That is all.

 

[RockstarChris]

ok so clearly they will no longer have armed guards picking up their money

 

[Grenz]

ok so clearly they will no longer have armed guards picking up their money

No, because that makes sense, as opposed to selling mentally ill teenagers guns.

 

[RockstarChris]

No, because that makes sense, as opposed to selling mentally ill teenagers guns.

Mentally ill teenagers cant buy guns.

 

[LMP]

I can't wait till they get another "bail out".

 

[LMP]

No, because that makes sense, as opposed to selling mentally ill teenagers guns.

It makes as much sense (selling teenagers guns) as sending them(the teenagers) to war.

 

[Grenz]

Mentally ill teenagers cant buy guns.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoneman_Douglas_High_School_shooting

In case you already forgot.

 

[RockstarChris]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoneman_Douglas_High_School_shooting

In case you already forgot.

So he legally bought a gun?

 

[LMP]

So he legally bought a gun?

I believe he did. That's what was so outrageous about the FBI failure to stop him.

 

[panamaican]

So, your fine as it stands. What if the next phase is anything to do with guns period? I ask because the whole infringement issue of the 2nd isn't specific to the government as written. It simply states shall not be infringed. Based on that interpretation how how is that different from the protections extended to race, sex, or religion? If a gun owner considers themself a protected class just as any religion? Maybe that's what needs to happen, start the Church of the Gun.

I'm fine as it stands. The 2nd Amendment is specific as to the government because the entire Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, is specific to the government. The government can't infringe on those rights but nothing requires private corporations to sell the goods.

I'm sure you and others are thinking about the cake issue. THe cake issue is one of alleged discrimination - they were selling cakes except to a protected class for a specific purpose. In this gun thing, Citi isn't treating different classes of gun buyers differently - they are limiting the scope of terms under which they will enter business with another company. And even if the underlying companies bow to the pressure, I still think they're fine.

To suggest otherwise would imply that if a store chose to only sell handguns and not rifles, they would be infringing on the 2nd Amendment. Or if they priced their firearms at exorbitant prices, that would also be infringement. Or if they sold guns but not ammunition. I can't see that a logical endpoint and so I can't see how an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment extends to dictating how firearms are sold when private companies impose their own internal restrictions.

 

[BudKing8806]

No, because that makes sense, as opposed to selling mentally ill teenagers guns.

You must be fucking retarded. Holy hell.

 

[RockstarChris]

just because a few people are idiots shouldnt take away my rights.

I didnt do anything.

So if a few idiots go call people the N word I lose my right to free speech?

 

[Teppodama]

I'm fine as it stands. The 2nd Amendment is specific as to the government because the entire Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, is specific to the government. The government can't infringe on those rights but nothing requires private corporations to sell the goods.

I'm sure you and others are thinking about the cake issue. THe cake issue is one of alleged discrimination - they were selling cakes except to a protected class for a specific purpose. In this gun thing, Citi isn't treating different classes of gun buyers differently - they are limiting the scope of terms under which they will enter business with another company. And even if the underlying companies bow to the pressure, I still think they're fine.

To suggest otherwise would imply that if a store chose to only sell handguns and not rifles, they would be infringing on the 2nd Amendment. Or if they priced their firearms at exorbitant prices, that would also be infringement. Or if they sold guns but not ammunition. I can't see that a logical endpoint and so I can't see how an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment extends to dictating how firearms are sold when private companies impose their own internal restrictions.

I might agree with your point if they either just stopped business completely with firearm companies or if these restrictions are applied in States were these restrictions have been written into law.

As it is, it's a restrictive policy regarding service directed at specific businesses for specific reasons that are not currently illegal. I really don't see that as much different than the mentioned baker saying I'll sell you a cake, just not a gay cake. Or that they'll sell them a cake as long as the cake won't be used at any "gay" functions.

 

[TheComebackKid]

This is all moving fast. Where are all the people that should be calling for the enlistment age to be increased? This all feels like false outrage from the conpanies.

It's almost like there's an agenda at play here...an agenda to disarm Americans.

 

[zebby23]

It's almost like there's an agenda at play here...an agenda to disarm Americans.

Just like the restrictions on the 1st amendment like slander were designed to totally keep humans from speaking. Exactly like that

 

[oldshadow]

It fine as long as it doesn't affect any business that already have loans with them before they started this.

The NRA and other organizations just need to get the word out so all of their customers can decide what they want to do.

This includes the regular customers as well as the business.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Just like the restrictions on the 1st amendment like slander were designed to totally keep humans from speaking. Exactly like that

Wut?

 

[zebby23]

Wut?

Sorry let me slow it down for you...
The 1st Amendment has some limitation and restrictions like slander, shouting fire in a movie theater and nobody is coming to take away your free speech.

The 2nd Amendment, should limitations and restrictions be placed on that YOU are saying ZOMG, they coming for your gunz.

In other words, stop being dramatic. Limitations didn't destroy the 1st Amendment they won't destroy the 2nd

 

[BudKing8806]

It's almost like there's an agenda at play here...an agenda to disarm Americans.

It will never happen. Rules and laws mean nothing. They think they're going to get rid of guns lmao...come on folks come take them I say. It's simple right? So just do it.