Citi Credit Card Rejects Firearms Industry

This stuff really ticks me off. I am going to call Citi bank and ask for a card...only to cancel the order mid-stream and tell them it is due to their gun poilicy.

Office gossip does have a way of getting around, and even if the low-paid phone people joke about the call it will get to a manager eventually.

Of course, if more than one person called in that would certianly get their attention...

 

no citi cards here, if i had one it would be cancelled and i would tell them why

 

I would trade my gun business in for a legal brothel anytime.

 

I bet I get 2 to 3 request a week for Citi Bank to take out their credit cards. Each one comes with a post paid envelope. Instead of just throwing the envelope away. I'll start sending them back with a note as to why I don't want their card. And THEY pay for it.

 

When you do it stuff it with as much garbage as you can because they get charged by the weight of the envelope.

 

A Suggestion

If I might suggest, rather than stuffing the postage paid envelop with junk, why not print a copy of the letter they sent to CDNN and include that with a nice note from you? They still have to pay for it and the person at the other end, opening the mail, most likely does not know the "policy".

Might get some conversation in the mailroom.

Oh, and just for those of you who do not know, the prostitutes here take credit cards - no, I don't visit them but when I walked a police beat there was one really nice looking hooker who kept her card imprinter in a little case around her neck. I always liked to stop and visit with her; kinda slowed down her business to have a uniformed officer standing there! And she was a good looking woman!

So their reference to immoral business seems rather hollow.

JOhn
Charlotte, NC

 

I got the news about CitiBank via email from my son-in-law and before checking here at THR I fired off an email to CDNN asking for confirmation. I told them if it was true that I'd shred my Citi Mastercard right after I cashed in my ~$90 worth of rebate dollars. If this outrage is true CitiBank will get an envelope of plastic confetti and and a cancellation PDQ. I emailed this to all my friends in my Hotmail address book.

 

I got a quick response from CDNN at 10:57 P.M. my time. Here's what CDNN said:

"We can only comment that the letter we received from Citi Bank is true.

Thanks."

As soon as I cash the rebate check I have coming it is all over for CitiBank in my life.

 

Since the decision makers in New York decided to give in to their mental disorder.

 

First Data's reply




Thank you for your message. The posting at www.nssf.org regarding Citi Merchant Services and First Data Corp. is inaccurate. Further, while we generally do not comment on individual merchant customers, we would like to briefly address the 12/26 letter posted on the web site. Regretfully, that letter did a less than satisfactory job of expressing applicable policies. Those policies are more properly detailed below.

Citi Merchant Services and First Data do process firearms transactions. Our policy restrictions address only the sale of firearms in a non face-to-face environment. Non face-to-face transactions occur when a cardholder is not present in front of a merchant and includes mail order and online purchases. It is our policy not to service merchants that make non face-to-face sales in a number of industries, including firearms.

It is not the policy of Citi Merchant Services or First Data to refuse to process transactions from duly licensed merchants that sell firearms in face-to-face transactions at the point of sale.

The posting also incorrectly states that Robert Tenenbaum is the supervisor when, in fact, he is not.

The information in this message may be proprietary and/or confidential, and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify First Data immediately by replying to this message and deleting it from your computer.

 

I can see the fraud angle in play here, but what about FFL to FFL transfers? There would seem to be an easy workaround by making the receiving FFL the actual face to face point of sale.

I'd like to know what other "industries" they invoke this policy...

 

Well even reading their reply it seems to me that what they are doing is trying to keep their financial instruments from being used in legal transactions for "things" that they disagree with politically. No more business from me . . . .ever.

 

Evidently they did.

 

Keep in mind that there are two "face-to-face" issues in this particular type of transaction:

1. CC processors also consider online transactions as a problem because of the transaction's non-signature. (That's why we ended up with the 'verification' services game as online purchasing developed.)

2. Then, of course, there are the various firearms issues in face-to-face / FFL-to-FFL, etc., etc.

Having said that, I have read the response above, in nhhillbilly's post, and consider it a master of obfuscation. As with other issues, Citi and First Data have implemented policies which supposedly maximize profit and minimize risk--and I have yet to meet a "good businessman" who didn't think that way.

There isn't a processor alive who won't jump at the chance to 'seize funds'--the procedures to get that money released are so problematic once any question is resolved that I still have about $300.00 in seizures I simply gave up on when I did online CC.

Keep in mind that these funds being held are in a huge slush fund that's run around for overnight interest gains, just as the banks do with the "your-deposit-will-be-credited-'x'-days" game.

I suspect that there are 'sophisticated business practices' at play here given issues starting in stock value decline / bad assets (subprime) problems, and rising costs (the prospect of more legislation)--and they are gearing up for dealing with it.

They're going to have to do better than that response nhhillbilly posted. Combine these policiies with (certain) employee's politics, and it's a mess.

Jim H.

 

I find First Data's explanation to be highly suspect. If their policy is that only face-to-face transactions are acceptable because of possible fraud, why is there no crackdown on companies such as Amazon.com, Ubid.com or Tigerdirect.com, all of who sell other kinds of merchandise? If First Data want to enforce this policy they should withdraw from ALL online transactions of ANY kind where the transaction is not face-to-face. What they are trying to do is an attack against the firearms industry alone.

 

I agree with Old Fuff. Either they do not understand the law on firearms transactions, or they simply don't care. I suspect the latter. Certainly they have had the law explained to them. I seriously doubt that there is any significantly greater default or fraud associated with an internet sale of firearms delivered through an FFL. It really smells of a Brady Bunch - VPC mindset of hysteria. "Think of what could happen!"

Thing is, they are going to lose all the business from related industries. Just look at the entire industry represented at SHOT Show. I'm sure NSSF will continue to make information about the alternative CC processing provider available to all businesses who care. They all should care. Maybe they haven't got thier letter yet, but they will and it will come at an inconvenient time and will include a large holdback like the one we saw with CDNN.

 

Henry and Old Fuff have it about right, I think.

My point is that "it really is NOT just about the firearms business"--it has to do with maximizing profit and minimizing risk in obtaining that profit; that's the mindset of any educated businessman. It is this "minimizing risk" game that plays to their Bradyesque thinking.

That point is probably a minor distinction--just because you're paranoid doesn't mean the bastards aren't out to get you.

As I try to parse the Citi / First Data response, it "sounds like" they see a transaction in which a) the end-purchasor of a firearm b) directly pays for the firearm with his personal CC, and that c) their transaction-tracking system provides for no data about the shipping side of the sale. Their in-house lawyer--risk-adverse and unimaginative in the extreme, with Brady-values as well--has flagged this.

So, they want to eliminate the CC transaction--or at least limit the transaction to a CC on an "approved" (read 'FFL-dealer') list. If it's a CC transaction, they get their fee while minimizing risk--and, of course, if the end buyer purchases the gun from the LGS / dealer with another CC transaction, they pick up another set of fees. That maximizes their income.

I think the only solution is to vote with your feet, as various responders here have done. Maybe the solution could be / is being set up over in "Activism" with an action plan?

Jim H.

 

If any of you work for a bank you will realize they DO NOT let social stances get in the way of making MONEY. They will take money from illegal arms dealers, corrupt nations, drug dealers, etc...

This is odd.

 

Ah, but if this was truly the case, they would need to avoid ALL non face-to-face transactions, and of all such transactions guns are probably the safest, because the card holder must go to the receiving dealer in person, fill out a #4473 form, present photo identification, and pass a background check, to get the merchandise. None of this is required if say, I buy a book from Amazon or a computer from TigerDirect. Also the delivery service won't leave the box sitting on the front step.

Since it would seem that they are applying this standard to ONLY TO THE FIREARMS BUSINESS, to the exclusion of others that entail equal or more risk to them, I would say that firearms are their intended target, and nothing else. They’re actions clearly show that in and of itself, financial risk is not an issue. If it was they'd start with the big online sellers first.

 

I'd let them know what you think about their decision.


[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Oh and call of course, that is much more effective than email.
June Rivera-Mantilla at 631-683-7734

 

Lawsuit! Restraint of trade. If terminated for reason other than credit issues.

 

It's "not just about the firearms business" in that by dropping CDNN and others -- who sell LOTS of stuff other than firearms -- they fore go all of their business. Many companies who sell firearms also sell tons of "gear" and accessories. Likewise, assuming there is a competitive alternative, other companies who don't sell firearms but who sell related items and are sympathetic to the pro-2A cause

 

I will never in my life get or have a citibank card

 

I did not save much of anything. Written in fine print on a form I did find this.

1st Data independant sales, services provided by Cardservice International A registered service provider for Wells Fargo Bank.

 

Why not file a complaint

A few years back the Arizona Department of Financail Institutions, had some beef with CiTi, turned out that because it was a not a arizona financail institution, they had no authority to proceed. I could not find any imfo on what the beef was, but did surf to this......


If the complaint is against a National Bank or against a Credit Card issued through a National Bank such as:
Bank of America
JPMorganChase
Wells Fargo Bank
HSBC
MNBA

Toll-free .............................. 800-613-6743
Direct Dial ............................713-336-4300

Or Mail complaints to:
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Customer Assistance Group
Suite 3450
1301 McKinney Street
Houston, TX 77010

I don't know if the "FEDS" will do anything, but why not try that hammer and see where it leads?