We must boycott paypal!

solareclipse said:

jsut put goods - other and who is to know otherwise?

yes i am sure everybody just puts kimber 45 acp serial#### in the subject line and describes it in detail in the info box..

they cannot know unless someone tells them. period.

Click to expand...

yup, that's what I do too, some people are just too stupid.
Simply put other goods and it's a done deal. and NO, I will not boycott paypal. I need it for my sale.

CentralTexas said:

I feel PayPal/Ebay (same Company) has the right to not allow firearms merchandise to be sold etc for whatever reason, anti-2A or being based in California.
That said, if the real reason they avoid it is trying not to run afoul of Kali law etc., why do they allow adult material and services, sex toys, drug paraphanelia etc to be sold around the US and in Kali when it is also illegal in some areas?
Just so you know if you don't EBAY is one of the largest suppliers of porn in the US. Go to Ebay--> everything else--> mature audiences and order your self the newest "Barely Legal" DVD or just do a search for a Hookah Pipe for your college dorm room.
Disclaimer- I have no problem with adults doing drugs or porn, my point is if they are truly doing this from a business angle why not prohibit these items as well as they could be shipped to a "wrong" area or paid for with PayPal...
CT

Click to expand...

I can't speak for Ebay, but I know that PayPal will do the same thing if you use it for various adult services. I had who had an "adult phone services" company and had her paypal account locked out for using it for her business.

Tom

Along with EBay, they're anti-gun so them. I'll send a check or bank draft first.

Click to expand...

Over 75,000 items on Ebay related to hunting, shooting and guns


Apparel (7948)
Books, Videos (2095)
Decoys (2437)
Game Calls (2416)
Gun Safety, Storage (1241)
Gun Parts (8614)
Gun Accessories (9977)
Hunting Accessories (6409)
Hunting Trips, Leases (250)
Knives (7589)
Reloading Equipment (5103)
Scopes, Optics, Lasers (7523)
Skeet, Trap Shooting (213)
Taxidermy, Mounts, Antlers (3822)
Vintage (5343)
Other Items (4096)

What some fail to realize is that NOT being "pro-gun" does NOT automatically make one "anti-gun".

If a company (PayPal, Ebay, K Mart for example) decides "In this sue-crazy society, the civil liability is far too great a risk for us as a company to be a potential point of contact for the next Columbine" and disassociates themselves with firearms related products, it's their RIGHT to do so, and more importantly, they are NOT HURTING US by doing so.

In this situation, the only thing they REALLY did wrong was EVER allow firearms related items to begin with, and then decided to discontinue doing so. Otherwise, we could all scream "Let's ALL boycotg Winn Dixie Supermarket because they don't sell shotguns and 9mm ammo at the makeup counter!"

This response is over the top and unwarranted.

On the other hand...

If a company (Levi Strauss for example) actively donate funds, time, resources, etc. or take an actual ANTI-GUN stance, not just neutral or "not us" stance, then I think a boycott is warranted and I support it 100%. Just such a list is compiled and maintained by the NRA: http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=15

Of course again, this IS a free country, and if you STILL choose to call for a boycott of EVERY SINGLE company that does not CATER to your firearms owning needs, then by all means, it is your right to do so.

I choose my battles a little more carefully than that.

I am curious about one thing. From this and other posts it seems that if Paypal cancels your account, it freezes the account and denies you access to your money? Now, I am not a lawyer but it seems to me that freezing your funds and holding them may not be the most legal of actions. I am trying to think if any other company does this, and if they did, would not there be an outcry against that company?

You can cancel my account for violating your policy and that is your right, but if you deny me access to my property (i.e., my money, which could be earning me interest someplace else) then this might be a violation of some sort of law. Depending upon the amount of money it might be worth a visit to an attorney.

SnakeEater said:

I realize this statement is nothing new and it's often overlooked by fools like myself. I didn't head the warnings that others have been giving. I've continued to use paypal to sell "firearm related" stuff and I never had a problem, until now. I sold a Sig P229 to a guy who wanted to use paypal. After recieving the payment I tried to transfer funds to my bank account and that's when things went downhill. I recieved an email from paypal tonight stating that my account has been "limited" and my funds transfer cancelled. Turns out they hold all funds for 180 days for accounts that are limited, and if you are limited because of firearms, there is no appeal.

After some heated discussion with paypal management over the phone, they still refused to give me access to that money. I did manage to convince them to refund the money to the buyer. I don't know the status of his account but I'm fearful that he's "limited" as well. Anyway, just a warning to those knuckleheads who are like me. Don't use paypal. When asked for clarification about their policy the manager said "basically anything firearm related will get you shut down if we catch it. Our investigators even look at internet forums and follow-up on deals the find there.

BEWARE!

Click to expand...

Ask them why the paypal logo is next to gun stuff on ebay, Tell them that you will call the AG or who ever it takes and shut them down.

closed

I closed my account a few months ago and the reason I listed was because of thier anti-gun polices.

Onslaught said:

What some fail to realize is that NOT being "pro-gun" does NOT automatically make one "anti-gun".

If a company (PayPal, Ebay, K Mart for example) decides "In this sue-crazy society, the civil liability is far too great a risk for us as a company to be a potential point of contact for the next Columbine" and disassociates themselves with firearms related products, it's their RIGHT to do so, and more importantly, they are NOT HURTING US by doing so.
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=15

I choose my battles a little more carefully than that.

Click to expand...

Paypal is not a store, it just facilitates the transaction. Has Visa been sued for crimes committed with merchandise it facilitated payment for? Has the Federal Reserve been sued for merchandise paid for with cash?

I don't see any other conclusion to teach than that PayPal is ultimately owned by anti-RKBA people. I personally wouldn't cancel my account if I used PayPal a lot and couldn't find an alternative that was just as good, since it is easy to get around their rules, but since I don't, I will cancel my account.

Ebay has 75,000 gun related items.

So they stopped allowing guns to avoid lawsuits.

Now they don't KNOWINGLY allow guns through paypal.

Sounds like a CYA.

I'm not a big fan of pay pal. They tried to screw me out of $460 of electronic
virtual property when the buyer backed out. Luckily I was able to grab my cash and run before they blocked my account.

I am now banned from paypal but my wife isn't

Interesting thread. I have used Ebay and PayPal to make gun related purchases. One way I have used to narrow a search is to click on "militaria" so they obviously welcome gun related merchandise. One perplexing thing is that they seem to allow sales of hi cap magazines but the seller is forced to say that it holds 10 rounds. Ebay is a little like Microsoft, they are the biggest and we find ourselves using them. Most posters making disparging remarks about Ebay are using Microsoft to make them. I don't think Bill Gates is very gun friendly, but I could be wrong. poppy

Creeping Incrementalism said:

Dude.... there is an S between the "g" and the "l".

You gave a link to a porn site.

Click to expand...

Now that's one hell of a blunder!

This whole thread amazes me because it is, in my opinion, ludicrous from the first post. For instance:

Does it strike anyone else as rather strange that someone would agree to Paypal's terms of service, full well knowing PayPal does not allow gun sales (because this is plainly stated in their terms of service - and they always let you know when such is updated - and your continued use means you agree to abide by the new TOS); then that someone goes out and uses PayPal to finalize a firearm sale, then he would whine and moan about paypal freezing his account when he violated their TOS and he got caught. Now that same person gets rather indignant about PayPals terms of service, specifically that they do not allow their service to be used for firearms sales. That same person is so indignant as to tell off a PayPal employee, then cancel his account in a huff and, he suggests, at least by implication, other people should do so. How should I say this to keep it on the High Road - hmm it is tough, I guess I'll just have to say it in English: that sounds kind of bizarre.

PayPal has the right to run their service as they see fit within the law. If they don't want you to use their service to buy or sell guns (make payments or accept payments for guns) and if you were so gosh darned against such a policy, why did you use Paypal in the first place. You have the right not to elect to use paypal. You decided instead to use it anyhow even though they did not allow gun payments. Of course you have the right to take a tizzy fit over it all, even though you should have been fully aware of their policy before you used their service - that is the bizarre part of it though - that you would get so angry and you were the one who broke the rules to which you had already agreed:banghead: . You brought this problem onto yourself - now you want everyone to empathize with you and rally against Paypal - very self serving, isn't it? It would have saved you a lot of trouble, and served you better, had you just had the forethought to use a method for payment that would not have resulted in you violating the TOS and also in your account being frozen. The United States Postal Service sells this wonderful monetary instrument known as a postal money order. What better way to accept or make payment for a gun than something with the word postal in it.

Best regards,
Glenn B

I'm with ya already!!!

I've NEVER used Pay-Pal and NEVER will!!!

SnakeEater,
You Ask For It You Get It, or What goes Around Comes Around:

First of all I apologize if I wrongly said you dropped your account, I must have been confused with someone else. Now that that is out of the way I will address that which does not confuse me. I am not confused about my opinion of your business character.

The gist of the mater is that you seemingly were dishonest by agreeing to Paypal’s terms and then being very agreeable to violate those terms. All you had to do to avoid this was to tell the seller he and you could not use Paypal for a firearms deal without violating their terms of service and that; you were unwilling to violate the terms of service to which you already had agreed. Then all you had to do was tell him you would accept another form of payment. Instead you took what was probably the convenient way to do the deal which apparently was to violate the TOS. You also just in essence wrote that you had expected someone else, the buyer to be dishonest; this by your expectation that he would not write down that the transaction was for a gun. Then Paypal held your money and my bet would be they state within their terms of service that such is one of their options for dealing with people who violate their TOS. Now you are pissed off and to defend your actions you say:

My guess is that nearly everyone, with the exception of you, on this board who uses Paypal probably regularly violate the TOS.

Click to expand...

So, if I read you correctly you are implying that everyone, except me, on these forums is probably dishonest in their business dealings! Is that correct? Would the fact thast others are dishonest make being dishonest any better? Come now, even if your statement was correct, that is a weak argument in favor of doing something wrong. Sounds very immature to me sort of like the hospitalized kid saying:

'Well mom and dad everyone else was doing it so I jumped off the bridge too, how was I supposed to know it was a bad thing?'

Click to expand...

No I don't think I would necessarily follow others off a a bridge in that manner without making pretty darned sure it was the right thing to do. So, before I forget, let me say thanks, I am flattered that you think I would not violate the PayPal TOS (I certainly would not knowingly do so) but; there are probably quite a few people, the majority, on these boards who, once they have agreed to a TOS, try to stick with it. My guess is that if the honest ones did not like Paypal's policy enough concerning no firearms tranactions, then they would simply either not sign up for Paypal or would simply not use it to buy or sell guns. You apparently screwed up and now you want sympathy and you want to look like the guy helping everyone out with a warning. People who deal honestly in their business transactions don’t need the warning in the first place because they would not do what you did in the first place. That is the gist of the matter. Get over it. How is that for a lecture.

Have a nice day,
Glenn B

What is needed is a payment method for people involved in lawful commerce that doesn't involve political correctness. Regarding Paypal - that policy came down from their parent company, EBay. It's good to stay away from both of them but seriously - our absence won't make any meaningful difference to their bottom line.

No. Did I advocate that paypal users who use the service for non-firearms related transactions beware? No.

Click to expand...

As far as I can see, you advocated that the users of this website, this forum, not only be aware of Paypals rules but, that we stop using Paypal because of those rules. You called for a boycott of Paypal. You did not specify that only those who use paypal for gun transactions should boycott Paypal, so in essence you did not say only those who are dishonest in their business dealings by violating a contract should boycott Paypal. No, you made a more general statement. You wrote that:

We must boycott Paypal!

Click to expand...

How convenient for you to have seemingly forgotten the idea with which you started your own thread.

regards,
GB

Wow, you mean i can't even buy a holster or anything? I am also in the ranks of scrolling through 3 miles of SLAs and clicking accept. Thank you edit- "Find on Page"! i too wasn't even aware they had this rule. Thanks for letting us know,

Hey Omni, I just went to Ebay and typed in "holster" and then refined the search with "militaria" and got 584 hits. Sooooo, I guess you can buy a holster. Again, as I stated on a previous post, Ebay seems to encourage gun-related merchandise, just not guns themselves. poppy

Paypal shut me down for buying, of all things, a Rifle Sling. No kidding. This was not covered by any rule, regulation, term of service or law. A lot of folks think buying magazines and slings and such is okay, I guess it depends on what kind of a mood the auditor is in that day.

Gee Glen, I have to respond.

Click to expand...

FWIW I agree with your position SnakeEater. While Paypal certainly has the right to set TOS, what they have set in this case makes no moral or legal sense. It appears to be an arbitrary and capricious decision and a violation does not in my opinion constitute an illegal act.

In my opinion Paypal has possibly performed an illegal act in freezing any monetary assets without due cause. This may or may not be in their TOS but I doubt that would stand up in a court of law. Certainly they can cancel your account, but what gives them the legal right to withhold your money?

I wish someone would follow up with a lawyer to challenge this practise.

poppy said:

Hey Omni, I just went to Ebay and typed in "holster" and then refined the search with "militaria" and got 584 hits. Sooooo, I guess you can buy a holster. Again, as I stated on a previous post, Ebay seems to encourage gun-related merchandise, just not guns themselves. poppy

Click to expand...

It seems like ebay and paypal have gotten together and invented bait, buy, then freeze your account. That sounds as crooked as bait and switch.

This stuff seems to arise from paypals "acceptable use policy", described thusly on paypals website:

...Thus, PayPal has developed an Acceptable Use Policy (“AUP”), as part of the User Agreement to which each customer agrees at the time of initiation of service. This policy help customers identify activities that are illegal or may be illegal under certain circumstances, and to identify certain types of activities for which PayPal has decided not to process payments, even if the activities may be legal.(emphasis added)
...
Violations of the Acceptable Use Policy.
Violating PayPal’s Acceptable Use Policy may result in temporary or permanent limitation of a customer’s account. This includes the inability to send and/or receive payments, to remove financial information from an account, and for users to close their accounts as a way of evading the policy. Additionally, users whose accounts are permanently limited for violating the Acceptable Use Policy are barred from future use of PayPal and its services, and such users are not permitted to open new or additional PayPal accounts.

Click to expand...

I would expect if paypal intended to impound people's money (not just cancel their account), this would be explicitly spelled out here. I don't see it. Could the term "permanent limitation" then be defined as impounding a person's money (aka stealing) without ever having to pay it back? Bet some lawyers would so argue.

Some would, and have, argued "their game, their rules". It seems in any discussion of laws, rules etc., a certain segment (usually law-and-order types) will quote chapter and verse, without any consideration of the moral ramifications. Think hard and answer this:

Paypal boasts about 86,6 million accounts. What do you figure the balance of the impounded funds averages? What yield when invested? To me this qualifies as a scam, corrupt practice, arbitrary and capricious, with vague notification to the public up front.