Bank of America and the 2nd amendment.

[bugmania]

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]

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]

Teach, methinks you've lived in California 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I've used credit unions for years once banks gain size the little guy is out,BofA is simply
off my list.

 

[sage5907]

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]

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]

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]

Good for the OP, I too dropped B.O.A. years ago due to their BS policies.

 

[Teachu2]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I found it on Guns and Ammo too. http://www.gunsandammo.com/2012/04/...millan-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