Bank of America and the 2nd amendment.


PDA






Bojangles7
April 20, 2012, 08:56 AM
Read this on another forum I visit and thought it should be posted here. If you bank with Bank of America, you may want to reconsider.


McMillan Fiberglass Stocks, McMillan Firearms Manufacturing, McMillan Group
International have been collectively banking with Bank of America for 12
years. Today Mr. XX YY, Senior Vice President, Market Manager, Business
Banking, Global Commercial Banking came to my office. He scheduled the
meeting as an "account analysis" meeting in order to evaluate the two lines
of credit we have with them.... He spent 5 minutes talking about how
McMillan has changed in the last 5 years and have become more of a firearms
manufacturer than a supplier of accessories.
At this point I interrupted him and asked "Can I possibly save you some time
so that you don't waste your breath? What you are going to tell me is that
because we are in the firearms manufacturing business you no longer want my
business."
"That is correct" he says.
I replied "That is okay, we will move our accounts as soon as possible. We
can find a 2nd Amendment friendly bank that will be glad to have our
business. You won't mind if I tell the NRA, SCI and everyone one I know that
BofA is not firearms industry friendly?"
"You have to do what you must" he said.
"So you are telling me this is a politically motivated decision, is that
right?"
Mr YY confirmed that it was. At which point I told him that the meeting was
over and there was nothing left for him to say.
I think it is import for all Americans who believe in and support our 2nd
amendment right to keep and bear arms should know when a business does not
support these rights. What you do with that knowledge is up to you. When I
don't agree with a business' political position I cannot in good conscience
support them. We will soon no longer be accepting Bank of America credit
cards as payment for our products.

Kelly D. McMillan
Director of Operations
McMillan Group International, LLC
623-582-9635
1638 W Knudsen Dr
Phoenix, Arizona 85027
McMillan Integrity-Global Vision



MOD NOTE: Confirmed via emai

If you enjoyed reading about "Bank of America and the 2nd amendment." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Murphy4570
April 20, 2012, 09:08 AM
Good for them. Shun them.

I bank with a local credit union myself. It is sort of like Cheers, everybody knows everybody.

R.W.Dale
April 20, 2012, 09:15 AM
Right now without substantiation this reads just a little too neat to pass my smell test

rbernie
April 20, 2012, 09:28 AM
It was posted on a Facebook page presumably owned by McMillan Group International:

https://www.facebook.com/McMillanGroupInternational

CSestp
April 20, 2012, 09:46 AM
WIN!! Well not win, but good for you to stick it to BoA. Sorry for the trouble this could cause you. I am glad to hear you not accepting a product, service, or in this case credit/debt card that goes against your morals.

murphys_law
April 20, 2012, 09:58 AM
Wow wrong move for ANY business. I wont be banking there, and will make sure I tell everyone I know not to as well.

Hk Paul
April 20, 2012, 10:11 AM
I dumped BofA when they wanted to charge customers for the privilege to use their own debit card. I don't miss them!

95XL883
April 20, 2012, 11:30 AM
Just an fyi. BOA also owns Merrill Lynch.

AlexanderA
April 20, 2012, 11:45 AM
How about an official statement from Bank of America rather than mere hearsay? One representative's verbal statements (to someone who's openly confrontational, at that) do not bind the institution. I'd be very surprised if a business as large and far-reaching as BoA would be willing to alienate a significant portion of its clientele for some narrow political purpose. Large businesses tend to avoid politics. (Even ebay's antigun policies can be seen as self-protective and not political. BoA would not have that excuse.)

Yo Mama
April 20, 2012, 12:48 PM
How about an official statement from Bank of America rather than mere hearsay? One representative's verbal statements (to someone who's openly confrontational, at that) do not bind the institution. I'd be very surprised if a business as large and far-reaching as BoA would be willing to alienate a significant portion of its clientele for some narrow political purpose. Large businesses tend to avoid politics. (Even ebay's antigun policies can be seen as self-protective and not political. BoA would not have that excuse.)

I doubt they would want to make an official statement without media pressure, ....which I see none.

Also, who says gun owners/manufacturers are a significant portion of their clientele?

hso
April 20, 2012, 12:54 PM
Anyone want to email McMillan and find out if this is factually accurate?

Ragnar Danneskjold
April 20, 2012, 12:55 PM
There's a lot of reasons not to use Bank of America. This is just one more on a long list.

Rail Driver
April 20, 2012, 01:00 PM
hso: I'll email both McMillan and BofA after lunch and reply here with their responses as I get them.

CoRoMo
April 20, 2012, 01:04 PM
They carry the note of my property. Dang.

But one question... One of McMillan's customers places an order and sends them a Visa card number. McMillan runs the card through their electronic means to charge for the order. How would McMillan know if the Visa card number they run was issued through a BoA branch?

I do this everyday. I use card numbers to complete my customers' transactions. I have nothing here showing me the issuing bank, just the cc company.

RCArms.com
April 20, 2012, 01:54 PM
I have heard rumors that there are CC processing companies that have singled out firearms related vendors and cancelled their vendor accounts. CDNN in Texas recently experienced this and moved to a new merchant account for CC processing.

If a merchant account provider chooses to cease business with one of their clients, that's their right in an at-will type relationship. Not sure why they would not want to collect the fees for processing simple credit card transactions, but it is what it is.

CDNN quickly shifted to another merchant account and it was business as usual for them. The only looser was the merchant account provider that elected to cease their relationship with a firearms business. They lost the percentage they charged CDNN to process every CC transaction as well as the monthly service and accessorial fees. Not sure what kind of monthly revenue they chose to walk away from, but it's not a very smart business decision at all.

Don

GojuBrian
April 20, 2012, 01:58 PM
These communists are in BO's pocket....no wonder.

Ryanxia
April 20, 2012, 02:02 PM
Local credit unions are the way to go.

I still have one account at BofA that I'm closing once I'm done with it. I've never noticed any no-firearms sign on their front door. I'm surprised they would go this far just to not do business with a legal company in good standing.

RCArms.com
April 20, 2012, 02:13 PM
Local credit unions are the way to go.

I still have one account at BofA that I'm closing once I'm done with it. I've never noticed any no-firearms sign on their front door. I'm surprised they would go this far just to not do business with a legal company in good standing.
I went with a Merchant Account through my local bank (2 branches at the time).

I asked at the time I set it up if they had any problem with processing credit card sales for a Firearms Dealer. Their answer was "do your customers pay you with green money?...No Problem, do you have any other questions this afternoon?"

I've been with them ever since and it would take A LOT to get me to even look at moving to another merchant account provider.

mrcooper
April 20, 2012, 02:20 PM
I used BOA several years ago and on 2 dealings they both were bad,:cuss::cuss: i stoped using them back in the 70s no regret. :neener::neener:

Paris
April 20, 2012, 02:42 PM
There are million reasons to avoid BoA at all costs, this is simply another to add to the long list of grievances. :)

95XL883
April 20, 2012, 03:22 PM
In a company as large as BOA, it can be quite difficult to know what is and isn't official policy. (A policy likely to be controversial will commonly be kept quiet on purpose.) I will be surprised if Rail Driver gets any response from BOA, but I hope he does.

My non-gun experience with Merrill Lynch (a BOA subsidiary) was they demanded personal information from non-customers as a "requirement" to releasing a customer's monies. They repeatedly cited The Patriot Act and FINRA regulations as requiring the information. When they finally provided a specific citation, their claim was quickly exposed as totally unsubstantiated. Under threat of litigation, they eventually relented, complying with their customer's directive to liquidate the account.

My point is it was impossible to tell if their actions were directed from corporate headquarters or were directed by a "loose cannon" local person. Either way, the effect was the same. They lost an account and damaged their reputation with their client and the client's relatives.

Even if the McMillan incident is confirmed by McMillan, it will be difficult to know if that is a corporate policy versus a local policy. Either way, the effect will be the same. BOA could lose customers because of it.

95XL883
April 20, 2012, 03:28 PM
Wow! I just sent email and received a response from McMillan. The incident is true. McMillan asks the BOA employee's name be redacted. (Moderators. I request that you remove the BOA employee's name from the original post. Thank you.)

Below is the McMillan response:


The statement posted on the McMillan Group International Facebook page is exactly as it happened and accurate. I would ask that you redact the gentleman’s name but leave his title if you repost the statement. Thank you for your support.

http://www.facebook.com/McMillanGroupInternational

Kelly D. McMillan
Director of Operations
McMillan Group International, LLC
623-582-9635
1638 W Knudsen Dr
Phoenix, Arizona 85027
McMillan Integrity-Global Vision
www.mcmillanusa.com

Become a fan of McMillan on facebook
http://www.facebook.com/McMillanGroupInternational
________________________________________
From:
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 11:19 AM
To: Kelly McMillan
Subject: Bank of America

Hello, there are multiple reports on the internet that Kelly McMillan was told by Xxx xxx of Bank of America that the bank was ceasing to provide lending to McMillan because McMillan is a firearms manufacturer. There is uncertainty that these reports are accurate. Can you confirm or deny the accuracy of the reports? Thank you.

PS. I am a firearms owner and active target shooter. I support the Second Amendment and the obviously stated right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Again, thank you.

Rail Driver
April 20, 2012, 03:48 PM
I got a similar response from McMillan, but as yet no response from BofA. Pretty much as expected.

Kernel
April 20, 2012, 06:50 PM
BOA stock tanked today. Good, that'll teach'em.

JustinJ
April 20, 2012, 07:09 PM
Unless BOA is advocating gun laws i don't see their refusal to work with gun makers as a 2nd amendment issue. If i stop buying a magazine because I don't like what they are saying that doesn't make it a 1st amendment issue.

Teachu2
April 20, 2012, 07:17 PM
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Help me out here - where does the Second say that firearms manufacturers have a right to bank financing? Or even exist, for that matter? It says that we have the right to keep and bear arms.

This is NOT a Second Amendment issue. It is a corporate decision, based on their collective values. I can use my BofA card and buy a whole lot of guns. If BofA was preventing me from that (while allowing me to buy other items) THEN it might be a 2nd issue.

BofA has decided to not invest in firearms manufacturers. That may or may not reflect a anti-gun stance. It may be that their bean-counters have determined that the risk of increased regulation in the near future makes firearms manufacturers a poor investment choice. It may be some other risk factor entirely. For all we know, they may be getting out of manufacturing financing in part or entirely.

It would be helpful to know if BofA provides financing to gun retailers or distributors.

The 2nd doesn't guarantee financing for anyone.

Bubbles
April 20, 2012, 07:20 PM
BoA has the right to do business with whoever they like. I have the same right. From a purely business standpoint I think it's rather short-sighted of BoA to discriminate against McMillan based on the fact that it's a firearms manufacturer rather than the company's profitability.

armoredman
April 20, 2012, 07:47 PM
I hate using this saying, but this time it's absolutely right...DITTO!

95XL883
April 20, 2012, 08:06 PM
Bojangles, thanks for pointing out I needed to get the name out of my post. Duh!

Curator
April 20, 2012, 08:22 PM
Remember BOA was "too big to fail" according to the Obama administration who receiver 15 million in political donations. They "bought out" Countryside mortgage" another BHO donor with TARP funds. These people are corporate parasites who need to be shunned by any thinging American. Don't do business with them under any circumstances! I have cancelled my BOA credit cards and found a new mortgagor. They can kiss my A$$

Yo Mama
April 20, 2012, 08:31 PM
Help me out here - where does the Second say that firearms manufacturers have a right to bank financing? Or even exist, for that matter? It says that we have the right to keep and bear arms.

I think your confusing the right to keep and bear arms, and the right to put your money in a company that doesn't discriminate against your way of life. Most of us here have firearms in our blood.

It's kinda like someone coming into your home and taking a dump in the master bathroom. It just stinks. :cool:

orionengnr
April 20, 2012, 08:35 PM
How would McMillan know if the Visa card number they run was issued through a BoA branch?
First four digits of the debit/credit card...

armoredman
April 20, 2012, 08:39 PM
Help me out here - where does the Second say that firearms manufacturers have a right to bank financing? Or even exist, for that matter?
Let me put it in perspective...

McMillon Publishing, a small publishing company that made its start with such family friendly titles as "Waffles For Breakfast", and "The Pig Said Squeak!", had banked with Bank of America since the beginning. But McMillon had branched out to publishing more authors over the years, and more diverse titles that began to touch on the political, such as "Heather has Two Waffles", and "The Pig Said Socialize!". Mr McMillon was called into see Mr Flax of BofA, who said that the publisher was too controversial to do business with anymore, and the highly successful company closed its accounts with the megabank. McMillon went on to publish more books, such as the bestseller "BofA hates Waffles and Pigs!", while BofA's stock dropped like a rock...the end.

WEJTWO
April 20, 2012, 08:42 PM
I am unable to locate a <Name redacted> (or anything close) in BofA corporate directory. Something about this just a little off for me. I am unaware of any position by firm against small arms or defense manufacturing. Like all Wall Streeters, my outside business interests must be approved by firm. My partners and I have small arms and security training company. I had no trouble obtaining approval for the business. Yet I could not obtain approval for a field servicing venture for the expanding Marcellus Shale fields here where I live.

In addition, I direct funds every month to NRA and Boy Scouts of America and receive matching contributions. Never an issue.

There are many of us at Merrill who are sold out 2A activists, CCW carriers, outdoorsmen, reservists, and veterans (I'm not a vet or reservist). I think we'd sniff this stuff out.

I'll discreetly try to get some information on this issue. Like many posters have remarked, it could be an individual situation and not firm wide policy. However, I'm very curious.

armoredman
April 20, 2012, 09:14 PM
The NRA linked to a new article on FB about it as well.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/20/anti-gun-bank-of-america-tells-gun-company-to-find-another-bank/

Old krow
April 20, 2012, 09:24 PM
This is NOT a Second Amendment issue. It is a corporate decision, based on their collective values. I can use my BofA card and buy a whole lot of guns. If BofA was preventing me from that (while allowing me to buy other items) THEN it might be a 2nd issue.

Correct, except that they took a bail out paid by ME via my elected officials. Once they were paid by MY tax dollars they should not be allowed to refuse ANY civil liberty.

That's a very dangerous stance to have. According to this logic, the Government should be allowed to fund and/or buy any business and then deny any Right that want to without any repercussions other than me simply not purchasing anything from them.

What if the Feds purchase controlling shares of SW just to have a gun registry... does that count as an "infringement?"

snakeman
April 20, 2012, 09:28 PM
I believe that is called discrimination and is no different than racial discrimination. They should be ruined for this move.

armoredman
April 21, 2012, 12:43 AM
No, that doesn't fall under the '64 CRA; they aren't acting against any Protected Class, so it isn't LEGALLY discrimination. Remember, the two people you can legally discriminate against are gun owners and smokers.
Yes, I am told they did take bailout money, so the question there is - who's running the bank, the officials thereof or the new majority stockholders, the current administration?

Teachu2
April 21, 2012, 12:58 AM
Quote:
This is NOT a Second Amendment issue. It is a corporate decision, based on their collective values. I can use my BofA card and buy a whole lot of guns. If BofA was preventing me from that (while allowing me to buy other items) THEN it might be a 2nd issue.

Correct, except that they took a bail out paid by ME via my elected officials. Once they were paid by MY tax dollars they should not be allowed to refuse ANY civil liberty.



CREDIT IS NOT A RIGHT OR CIVIL LIBERTY. BofA is not taking anyone's right away - including McMillan's. Whether or not it's a good business decision, only the market can decide - but it's NOT a Second Amendment issue. Trying to portray it as such wrong.

McMillan, OTOH, is going to refuse to sell to me if I do business with a bank they don't get along with. That MAY be a violation of interstate commerce laws...

I'm not a BofA fan - their customer service stinks. They, however, are a fan of mine, issuing me a high-limit, no-fee credit card that I don't pay interest on and use to buy guns and gun stuff - except from McMillan.

armoredman
April 21, 2012, 01:10 AM
Teach, not arguing with you, but can you scare up a link on the interstate commerce law he might be violating? I'd think his lawyer should have advised him on that, or at least one might think that way.

Jeff F
April 21, 2012, 01:25 AM
If McMillan refuses to accept B of A Visa or Master card they would be in violation of their Visa/Master card terms of service and could be accessed penalty's. We just had a new liquor store open and start charging a .35 cent surcharge on credit/debit card purchases and they got nailed for it

RCArms.com
April 21, 2012, 02:06 AM
Teach, not arguing with you, but can you scare up a link on the interstate commerce law he might be violating? I'd think his lawyer should have advised him on that, or at least one might think that way.
There is nothing to keep him from offering a discount for payment using a NON-BoA credit card or some other similar, above board offer that encourages a customer to use a desired payment method.

mg.mikael
April 21, 2012, 02:43 AM
but it's NOT a Second Amendment issue. Trying to portray it as such wrong.

So Bank of America discriminating against clients that do business directly related to and protected by the Second Amendment is not an issue??

hey, however, are a fan of mine, issuing me a high-limit, no-fee credit card that I don't pay interest on and use to buy guns and gun stuff

So they give you a credit card with a high limit and that makes you instant fanboy of BOA?
You should learn from example, McMillian was a bigger customer then you are and look how they were treated....clearly they won't give a rat's behind about you.

mrvco
April 21, 2012, 02:59 AM
I wouldn't touch BofA with a foot pole begin with, but I guess the firearms industry is "too legit" for them:

Banks Financing Mexico Gangs Admitted in Wells Fargo Deal (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-29/banks-financing-mexico-s-drug-cartels-admitted-in-wells-fargo-s-u-s-deal.html)

Voltia
April 21, 2012, 03:28 AM
Armoredman, it is legal to discriminate against the young, the straight, the white, and the male, in addition to your two.

Hacker15E
April 21, 2012, 06:24 AM
Do any of you seriously think that, at a company with the scope of B of A, a 'boycott' by concerned American firearms owners/purchasers/manufacturers would even dent their business?

That scope of that company's assets, liabilities, etc, is monstrous compared to all of "our" interests combined and multiplied.

Nice idea, and probably makes some folks feel good about their actions, but if you think it has/would impact B of A's policies, you're simply peeing in the wind.

Hacker15E
April 21, 2012, 06:26 AM
So Bank of America discriminating against clients that do business directly related to and protected by the Second Amendment is not an issue??

#1, by the legal definition that comes to mind when making these statements, B of A is not "discriminating".

#2, there is not 2A protection for "business" relating to firearms.

Old krow
April 21, 2012, 10:10 AM
CREDIT IS NOT A RIGHT OR CIVIL LIBERTY. BofA is not taking anyone's right away - including McMillan's. Whether or not it's a good business decision, only the market can decide - but it's NOT a Second Amendment issue.

What market? The "free market?" This hasn't been an issue of "the invisible hand" of the free market since TARP when they took over 45 billion of tax payers dollars to bail out a business that free market chose to die. The market DID decide.

Trying to portray it as such wrong.

NOT seeing the potential danger in this is a gross oversight. If this becomes accepted practice then all that is needed to prevent future gun ownership is for the Feds to bail out the companies that will not do business with firearms companies and let the rest fail.

This isn't about a person opening a coffee shop and deciding not to let someone in, this is about a company that was paid for by the US taxpayers and it should not be allowed to restrict its business based on the involvement of its relationship with a Civil Liberty. You may be okay with funding this, and you may consider me wrong for "portraying" this as a 2nd issue, but I am not okay with paying for a company.... well, I wasn't okay with the bail outs in the first place, but now I am not okay with them discriminating this way.

Bottom line, if they want to make their own decisions on who they do business with and who they do not, they should PAY THEIR OWN BILLS. As long as my money is funding this non-sense I have the right to complain about it.

Robert
April 21, 2012, 10:16 AM
I have to agree with Teach I do not see this being a 2A issue, I do however see a short sighted business move that may come back to haunt them. 2A only applies to the Government placing restrictions on what are our Creator given rights. 2A does not apply to a private company at all. They may choose to not allow carry, concealed or open, on their property and they may choose not to busniess with a firearms company. That is not a violation of 2A.

It is however bad business. There are many thousands of gun owners in this country many of whom are active in pointing out companies like BoA and making sure their practices are brought to light. Don't like how a private company treats you because you are a gun owner? Then don't go there, and tell every other gun owner you know what they are doing. Let your money do the talking. But alas in this case I fear it will make no difference.

This isn't about a person opening a coffee shop and deciding not to let someone in, this is about a company that was paid for by the US taxpayers and it should not be allowed to restrict its business based on the involvement of its relationship with a Civil Liberty.
Without the SAF or NRA taking this to court there is no way to fight that other than by taking our business somewhere else. But you make a good point. When a company takes Federal money does that change the way in which they are allowed to operate, in a legal sense?

JLDickmon
April 21, 2012, 10:29 AM
meh... I've been on the internet too long to not greet this with a certain level of skepticism.

I somehow cannot see BofA waltzing into a client's office and telling them to simply <removed>

bugmania
April 21, 2012, 10:33 AM
But if that Government has a financial stake in the company, (TARP funds), then that company may be just a puppet for the government's political agenda. Quid pro quo.

Perhaps we should look for a trend of bailed out companies shunning 2A businesses. Unfortunately, the "wait and see" attidude usually ends up as "Oops, too late."

Robert
April 21, 2012, 10:37 AM
But if that Government has a financial stake in the company, (TARP funds), then that company may be just a puppet for the government's political agenda.
And that is the question that needs to be answered by someone, with deep pockets, bringing this to court.

I hate BoA. They, the sellers bank, almost lost me our new house... long OT story.

whalerman
April 21, 2012, 10:38 AM
Teach, methinks you've lived in ********** for too long. But I understand your point, though disagree. My rights are to stop doing business with BofA and to damage their business by encouraging my friends to do the same. Any business that believes a constitutionally protected right is offensive to them is a business I will act against.

Robert
April 21, 2012, 10:39 AM
My rights are to stop doing business with BofA and to damage their business by encouraging my friends to do the same. Any business that believes a constitutionally protected right is offensive to them is a business I will act against.
Well said!

Manny
April 21, 2012, 10:50 AM
I walked away from a BOA credit card (Gander Mountain I believe) I had several years ago when they were encouraging and facilitating banking in the US by illegal aliens. I made sure to state my reason when I called to cancel.

I may not be able to avoid doing doing business with all anti-2A companies, but I can avoid supporting at least some, and BOA is one I choose not to support.

22-rimfire
April 21, 2012, 10:53 AM
Looks like I am going to move some accounts from BOA. But first I will send a letter notifying them "why". I have had accounts there for many years.

Old krow
April 21, 2012, 11:01 AM
Robert, I am afraid that you have missed my point. However, if you did not, there is plenty of room for all of our opinions. :)

I cannot simply exercise my right to not do business with them and expect the invisible hand of the free market to play its role. This cannot happen because it did happen and the same "private business" was resurrected and allowed to live. They are immune to the ramifications of poor business practices in a free market. Do you think that if every gun owner, better yet, if everyone stopped doing business with them that they would have to change their policy due to fear of financial collapse?

You guys that are arguing the point are treating this as if it falls under the jurisdiction of the free market. My point it, it hasn't been a free market issue since TARP.

2A only applies to the Government placing restrictions on what are our Creator given rights. 2A does not apply to a private company at all.

While 2A issues wasn't the reason for their financial demise, the Gov stepped in and stopped them from dying a natural death. By supporting this "private company" with tax payer's money they are by proxy supporting restrictions on the 2A because they are supporting a "private business" that has restricted its business based on firearms. If the Gov had not intervened this would not be the case, but they did.

WEJTWO
April 21, 2012, 11:06 AM
I disagreed with all of the various government programs including TARP. The program's purpose was to encourage the big nine, "too big to fail" institutions to lend out TARP funds to thaw paralyzed credit markets, primarily for businesses, not citizen homeowners. Most did not lend the funds, but instead either shored up their own eroding capital like Morgan Stanley, become a commercial bank, such as Goldman, or sit on it and wait for Congress to let them pay it back, like Wells, JP, Merrill, and others.

On 3 Dec 2009 Bank of America and Merrill were some of the early few who paid the TARP back in full with interest as soon as Congress and Treasury permitted them to do so.

It is difficult to use TARP to make a case the banks are a proxy of our government in depriving us of our civil rights.

Unless we're speaking of hiring, racial segregation, or redlining in the offering of credit, a private entity may do business with whom they wish, regardless of how we may feel or whether it makes rational business sense. I remain uncomfortable concluding this is form policy until I learn more.

wingman
April 21, 2012, 12:32 PM
I've used credit unions for years once banks gain size the little guy is out,BofA is simply
off my list.

sage5907
April 21, 2012, 02:02 PM
I think all gun owners should stop doing business with Bank of America. If they don't support the 2nd Amendement they shouldn't be in business.

armoredman
April 21, 2012, 02:40 PM
Voltia, I agree with your additions except this, the white, for if anyone had the stones to use the Ricci vs New Haven SCOTUS decision, they could show that legally there is no such thing as reverse racism, racism is racism...but the media will never see it that way, of course.

7thCavScout
April 21, 2012, 03:08 PM
As a business who is tied at the hip to our Federal Government, it makes you wonder if they don't have an idea about the future profitability of firearms manufacturers due to impending legislation.

powell&hyde
April 21, 2012, 03:17 PM
Good for the OP, I too dropped B.O.A. years ago due to their BS policies.

Teachu2
April 21, 2012, 10:56 PM
Teach, not arguing with you, but can you scare up a link on the interstate commerce law he might be violating? I'd think his lawyer should have advised him on that, or at least one might think that way.


U.S. Supreme Court in Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan 506 U.S. 447 (1993),

"The purpose of the [Sherman] Act is not to protect businesses from the working of the market; it is to protect the public from the failure of the market. The law directs itself not against conduct which is competitive, even severely so, but against conduct which unfairly tends to destroy competition itself. This focus of U.S. competition law, on protection of competition rather than competitors, is not necessarily the only possible focus or purpose of competition law. For example, it has also been said that competition law in the European Union (EU) tends to protect the competitors in the marketplace, even at the expense of market efficiencies and consumers."

In this case, BofA could (but probably won't) claim that McMillan is attempting to unfairly deny their customers the same use of their credit cards that McMillan grants to the customers of all of BofA's competitors - creating an unfair competition for credit.

Let's make this clear - I think the BofA decision is a bad one. However, I defend their right to make decisions based on information available to them, and with the consent of their shareholders. Kinda like free speech - I may think what you say is (fill in the blank), but I defend your right to say it.

HOOfan_1
April 22, 2012, 03:09 AM
Sure there is no law preventing BoA from pulling the account of gun manufactures.
Sure a boycott by gun owners might not do a darn thing to BoA

However, it is pretty disappointing, although NOT surprising at all, that some members here choose to shake their fingers and poo poo other members for following their heart and what they think is right. It is also disappointing that I am not surprised at all that there are people discouraging other members from doing what they think is right.

Maybe keeping my money out of the pockets of gun unfriendly companies won't phase them one bit, but putting my money in their pockets sure phases me. I will not patronize companies who I disagree with, because it is my choice who I patronize, just as it is their choice who they do business with. BoA is standing firm on some sort of principle and I think the members of this forum advocating boycott are standing behind their principles. Better to do something and fail than to do NOTHING and fail

danez71
April 22, 2012, 10:47 AM
U.S. Supreme Court in Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan 506 U.S. 447 (1993),

"The purpose of the [Sherman] Act is not to protect businesses from the working of the market; it is to protect the public from the failure of the market. The law directs itself not against conduct which is competitive, even severely so, but against conduct which unfairly tends to destroy competition itself. This focus of U.S. competition law, on protection of competition rather than competitors, is not necessarily the only possible focus or purpose of competition law. For example, it has also been said that competition law in the European Union (EU) tends to protect the competitors in the marketplace, even at the expense of market efficiencies and consumers."

In this case, BofA could (but probably won't) claim that McMillan is attempting to unfairly deny their customers the same use of their credit cards that McMillan grants to the customers of all of BofA's competitors - creating an unfair competition for credit.

Let's make this clear - I think the BofA decision is a bad one. However, I defend their right to make decisions based on information available to them, and with the consent of their shareholders. Kinda like free speech - I may think what you say is (fill in the blank), but I defend your right to say it.

I dont like BofA for a few reasons.
I also feel they arent breaking any laws either in regards to this discussion.

However, I dont think the ex you provided really applies as there are a lot of other banks willing to lend to gun companies that their refusal doesnt signifigantly impact competition at all.

beatledog7
April 22, 2012, 11:13 AM
We live in a reality in which you pretty much have to have a credit card (buy an airline ticket, rent a car, etc.), but thank goodness we also live in a reality in which competition for your credit transactions still thrives. Don't like something your current company is doing? Switch.

Plan2Live
April 22, 2012, 08:08 PM
Ryanxdia said: Local credit unions are the way to go.

I say local Community Banks are the way to go. My Community Bank has a non-regulation No Gun sign in an obscure, off-center location. The local Credit Unions have regulation compliant No Gun signs posted front and center. Just my two cents.

Rail Driver
April 22, 2012, 08:16 PM
No, that doesn't fall under the '64 CRA; they aren't acting against any Protected Class, so it isn't LEGALLY discrimination. Remember, the two people you can legally discriminate against are gun owners and smokers.
Yes, I am told they did take bailout money, so the question there is - who's running the bank, the officials thereof or the new majority stockholders, the current administration?

Wow... I guess since I'm a gun owner and a smoker, I get it from both ends! :what:

For what it's worth, I live in Florida. My girlfriend banks with BofA (until we get the credit card paid off anyway), and not only do none of the local branches have any kind of no-gun signs, but I've never seen a no-gun sign at any bank here. Matter of fact, the only places I've seen no-gun signs have been a few small businesses and anything owned by one of the universities in Tallahassee (I live just outside of Tallahassee and do most of my business there).

Jamie B
April 23, 2012, 03:37 AM
We want to let you know that we hear your comments and questions regarding one of our customers. While we cannot discuss the details of any individual client we work with, we can assure you the allegations being made here are completely false. Bank of America does not have a policy that prohibits us from banking clients in this industry. In fact, we have numerous, longstanding customers in the industry.

We are also extremely proud of our support of the US military and reject any assertion to the contrary. We count as clients many companies that provide for our nation's defense. We employ thousands of veterans, Guardsmen, and Reservists, and plan to increase our hiring this year.
This was posted on the BOA FB page.
I have been ragging in posts there pretty hard for the last several days.
The statement above does not say that they are pro gun, though.

coloradokevin
April 23, 2012, 05:47 AM
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Help me out here - where does the Second say that firearms manufacturers have a right to bank financing? Or even exist, for that matter? It says that we have the right to keep and bear arms.

This is NOT a Second Amendment issue. It is a corporate decision, based on their collective values. I can use my BofA card and buy a whole lot of guns. If BofA was preventing me from that (while allowing me to buy other items) THEN it might be a 2nd issue.

BofA has decided to not invest in firearms manufacturers. That may or may not reflect a anti-gun stance. It may be that their bean-counters have determined that the risk of increased regulation in the near future makes firearms manufacturers a poor investment choice. It may be some other risk factor entirely. For all we know, they may be getting out of manufacturing financing in part or entirely.

It would be helpful to know if BofA provides financing to gun retailers or distributors.

The 2nd doesn't guarantee financing for anyone.

I have to agree with you on this point. If BofA instituted such a policy as a political decision they'd probably be more obvious about it. I suspect that they may simply not want to finance gun manufacturers merely because they perceive it to be a risky investment on their part (given the ever-evolving nature of gun politics and regulations). For example, lets consider a company like Barrett, who has built most of their business around the .50 BMG for a lot of years. If that caliber was suddenly banned (and attempts have been made to do such things), what would happen to Barrett's value tomorrow?

I may not agree with such policies, but I'd be willing to bet that BofA made their decision not to finance Mcmillan for reasons related to perceived investment risk, rather than merely political reasons. I could be wrong, and regardless of whether or not I'm wrong or right, a person can still choose to do business elsewhere as a result of this decision from BofA.

Sgt_R
April 23, 2012, 08:55 AM
We want to let you know that we hear your comments and questions regarding one of our customers. While we cannot discuss the details of any individual client we work with, we can assure you the allegations being made here are completely false. Bank of America does not have a policy that prohibits us from banking clients in this industry. In fact, we have numerous, longstanding customers in the industry.

We are also extremely proud of our support of the US military and reject any assertion to the contrary. We count as clients many companies that provide for our nation's defense. We employ thousands of veterans, Guardsmen, and Reservists, and plan to increase our hiring this year.
This was posted on the BOA FB page.
I have been ragging in posts there pretty hard for the last several days.
The statement above does not say that they are pro gun, though.

This is interesting.

Even if McMillan had some kind of falling-out with the bank, I can't imagine he would have fabricated a story like this (from a business perspective it just doesn't make sense).

So if McMillan and BofA are both being truthful, then it would seem that the issue lies with the local branch. I wonder what, if anything, BofA is doing to remedy the situation at that level?

R

hso
April 23, 2012, 12:22 PM
If the issue is local and national has been forced to respond to the issue, Mr. Fox will be in deep trouble for inconveniencing his boss' boss'.

asia331
April 23, 2012, 12:41 PM
I dumped BoA years ago when the local AZ newspaper revealed that BoA did not require SSN's of illegals to open an account. That may have since changed but that did it for me.

ol' scratch
April 23, 2012, 12:48 PM
I found it on Guns and Ammo too. http://www.gunsandammo.com/2012/04/22/bank-of-america-drops-mcmillan-group-for-being-firearms-manufacturer/


Also at Snopes. Snopes makes it sound more like a he said/she said situation. http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/bankofamerica.asp

Dave Workman
April 23, 2012, 03:12 PM
Well, I weighed in on it this morning but was careful to use terms like "alleged" and "asserted," and (Jamie, never mind responding to the PM, I found it with some hard looking) ran the bank's denial...which is kind of buried on its Facebook page. That doesn't make sense to me, since if it were me, I'd be posting that in big bold capital letters at the top of the page.

But I'm trying to be fair and balanced...or something.

:D

See what you think between what I did and what others wrote:

http://www.examiner.com/article/bank-of-america-goes-anti-gun-says-mcmillan

Jamie B
April 23, 2012, 04:11 PM
hso - If the issue is local and national has been forced to respond to the issue, Mr. Fox will be in deep trouble for inconveniencing his boss' boss'.
Yup, that is what I am thinking.
Local account manager had Wheaties for breakfast, and decided to be a bad azz.
This Fox clown might be in deep hooha.

Dave Workman - sorry that I missed you!

Jamie B
April 23, 2012, 04:21 PM
Nice column, Dave!
Good job on the additional information.

WEJTWO
April 25, 2012, 05:07 PM
Here is the response I received today from George W. Smith, Commercial Bank Executive, Bank of America's "Executive Offices":

BAC's response is at the top. Our email requesting information is below.

-------
FROM: Executive Offices (executive.offices@bankofamerica.com)

We want to let you know that we hear your comments and questions regarding one of our customers. While we cannot discuss the details of any individual client we work with, we can assure you the allegations being made are completely false. Bank of America does not have a policy that prohibits us from banking clients in this industry. In fact, we have numerous, longstanding customers in the industry.

In reviewing the facts of the case, we do believe there was a miscommunication with this client, and we have already reinforced our policies with our teams and with the client. We have also discussed with the client a transition period during which the client may be able to obtain a new source of funding.

George W. Smith
Commercial Bank Executive


From: Bill James [mailto:wejtwo@suddenlink.net]
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 8:40 PM
To: IR
Subject: Request from Shareholder for Information
Importance: High

Dear Sir or Madam:

My wife and I are shareholders of BAC.

My question is regarding reports in this weekend

WEJTWO
April 25, 2012, 05:11 PM
Here's the email we sent BAC (was cut off in prior post--not good at this tech stuff):

From: Bill James [mailto:wejtwo@suddenlink.net]
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 8:40 PM
To: IR
Subject: Request from Shareholder for Information
Importance: High

Dear Sir or Madam:

My wife and I are shareholders of BAC.

My question is regarding reports in this weekend

St8LineGunsmith
May 7, 2012, 12:35 PM
Bank of America is ran by crooks and needs to be shut down
I have my reasons for saying but don't have the time to explain

all you have to do is google class action lawsuit against bank of America this will pretty much explain how BOA is ripping off thousands of home owners and I am one of those Home owners.:banghead:

gym
May 7, 2012, 11:41 PM
BOA has a new policy, I gave them a deposit of $900,00 and they gave me a receipt for 100.00, I atarted out the door and noticed that they only gave me the cash part. I went back in and was told that sometimes this happens and the deposit would show up after 12am. An hour later I felt uneasy about this so the calls started, I made sure that the bank MGR walked over to The teller whose nam I took, and made sure my checks were indeed there, I called 3 supervisors and asked for some sort of verification that they had my money as I had no receipt. The best I could do at that point was get names and statemants with management on the phone, luckilly it posted at 12. I will never allow this to happen again, as the checks were made to cash, They really didn't want to tell me there was a glitch in their printing system. But be careful and look at the receipt, it usually has what's available and what will clear, not necessarilly anymore, if I go back and it happens again, I will close me 3 BOA accounts and take them someware else after 20 years.
The only good thing about BOA is the offer "title by entirety" accounts which I guarantee your bank teller and MGR never heard of, even BOA tellers never heard of it, It prevents a spouse,"u must b married" to be sued for the other spouses problem, another words your wife or you get sued, they cannot attach your account. I learned this little trick from a slick attorney.
We have had this now for 15 yrs, same check just says Title by entirety on top, very good for a small business.

MachIVshooter
May 8, 2012, 12:55 PM
In this case, BofA could (but probably won't) claim that McMillan is attempting to unfairly deny their customers the same use of their credit cards that McMillan grants to the customers of all of BofA's competitors - creating an unfair competition for credit.

Merchants are free to decide which credit cards they will accept and which they wont just as I, as a shop owner, can decide I will not use parts from certain vendors, with or without reason. That includes the ones a customer may bring. In turn, I run the risk of not getting that customer's business, just as McMillian may lose the sale to a BofA cardholder. I won't use inferior parts because people don't usually distinguish between a parts failure and a mechanic error. It would reflect poorly on me, and I'm more interested in my reputation and integrity than I am in making a sale. McMillian has made the same decision.

There is a mile long list of reasons to shun BofA. For me, the credit cards for illegals is the big one. Of course, I've also been on a cash-only system for the last 3 years, save for the mortgage.

Double Naught Spy
May 8, 2012, 01:54 PM
Yep, BOA has had some dumb policies over the years. They have been known to be anti-gun since at least 2001 and as early as 2003 on this board. I just can't figure out why McMillan is upset with BOA. They should be happy to be free of an anti-gun institution that they have supported for the last 11 years.

If you enjoyed reading about "Bank of America and the 2nd amendment." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!