eBay CEO in power when eBay banned guns and gun components for Republican Governor!

[Zoogster]

Meg Whitman was the CEO of eBay from March 1998 to March 2008.
She became the CEO in 1998. They stopped selling guns in 1999:

http://news.cnet.com/No-guns-on-eBay/2100-1017_3-221898.html
February 19, 1999

Online trading community eBay today announced that it is ending user listings of all firearms and ammunitions on the site.

The company said its decision was based on the belief that the Internet is not an appropriate venue for that kind of merchandise. Beginning March 5, firearms will not be listed in any categories, including the "Firearms," "Antique," "Collectibles," and "Sport" categories.

"While we acknowledge the gun collectors and sports enthusiasts among our users, eBay takes its role as a responsible member of the online community very seriously," Steve Westly, eBay's vice president of marketing and business development, said in a statement.

"After careful consideration of the issue, we believe the process of buying and selling firearms online is sufficiently different from the offline world, and it is appropriate for us to end the user listing of firearms on eBay," he said.

Westly added that online sellers cannot readily guarantee that buyers meet all the qualifications and comply with the laws governing firearm sales.

The company tried instituting changes to the firearm category but after investigating a variety of alternatives, eBay concluded that, in consideration of current technology and laws, no alternative met its standards.

"We realize that the sale of firearms is a controversial issue, and our stance will spark support as well as criticism," added Westly.

"A private enterprise can decide to sell or not sell anything they want," said a spokesman for the National Rifle Association, an organization that fights for the right to own firearms. "This has no effect on the right to own guns."

Sales of firearms were miniscule, representing less than one quarter of 1 percent of sales, said an eBay spokeswoman.

The company said that firearms-related items, such as holsters, literature, clothing, and scopes, may still be sold on eBay, but only listed in the "Collectibles: Western Americana," "Collectibles: Militaria," and "Miscellaneous: Sporting Goods: Hunting" categories.

eBay members who posted messages on the site's community boards were evenly divided among those supporting the company's decision and those against it.

"The way this venue is created, there is no way to absolutely guarantee that anyone is who they say they are--credit cards and id's can easily be copied--and there is no 'face to face,'" wrote one member. "Rather than have kids, sickos, and criminals buying guns via the Internet, everyone has to suffer!"

Another member said that he would no longer visit eBay because of the decision.

"Your new policy is ill advised, anti-freedom and anti-American," wrote one member. "I will personally quit eBay, advise everyone I know to avoid eBay and its stock."

The company plans to hold public forums on next week to answer questions from community members about the firearms policy.

She was also the CEO when they upgraded the anti-gun policy in 2007:

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=3186

eBay Expands Its Anti-Gun Policy

Friday, August 03, 2007


Years ago, eBay banned the sale of all complete firearms on its online auction and shopping website. However, they did continue to allow the sale of parts and many accessories. This week, a spokesman for eBay announced that the company would ban the sale of all gun-and-ammunition-related parts and components.

The ban is set to begin in mid-August, when eBay will prohibit the listing of “any firearm part that is required for the firing of a gun.” This prohibition will include, according to eBay, “bullet tips, brass casings and shells, barrels, slides, cylinders, magazines, firing pins, trigger assemblies, etc.” In explaining the decision to restrict these items, Matt Halprin, eBay’s Vice President, Trust & Safety, said, “After much consideration, the Trust & Safety policy team – along with our executive leaders at eBay Inc.– have made the decision to further restrict more of these items than federal and state regulations require.” [emphasis added]

With this action, eBay sends the message that they don’t want, or appreciate, law-abiding gun owners’ business. By banning these legal products, eBay is adopting the anti-gun movement’s opposition to all legal gun ownership. Fortunately, gun owners and sportsmen have alternatives.

She now campaigns to be the Republican Governor of California.
Does anyone have some more detailed information on her stance on firearm rights?

 

[Nugilum]

What's the problem? She sounds like a typical Californian politician to me.

 

[armoredman]

That is a Cali republican, a Cali Democrat would call for execution or expulsion of all gun owners.

 

[BHP FAN]

Ahnuld signed the Condor bullet ban and the ban on mail order handgun ammo.Still,he was a better choice than Crazy Bustamonte who wanted to cede the state to Aztlan.Rhinos are minceing and prancing all over our state.

 

[Autolycus]

Exactly. California Republicans, such as Ronald Reagan, hate guns. It is part of their base for the most part and the undecided votes are generally anti-gun in California. This is just politics as usual.

 

[BCCL]

Since when did "Ronald Reagan, hate guns"???

http://www.gunsandammo.com/content/ronald-reagan-the-gun-owners-champion

EDIT:OK, just found what I think you mean with google, wow...never knew Reagan signed an anti-carry law in CA.

Gotta admit, I was surprised.

 

[mp510]

I can't speak fro the initial policy change, but the 2007 expansion was a PR move that came in light of the media bashing eBay after they discovered that Cho bought some mags there. It was the best business decision that eBay could make in light of the circumstances.

 

[pancakeofdoom]

ok, flame on...

but seriously guys, we live in a lawsuit society. if they don't ban them for sale eventually SOMEBODY will sue them. sure there are other online vendors that do, but ebay is a big name with a lot of capital, they're a big target. craigslist has done it, i'm surprised amazon sells as much as they do, and i'm very surprised nobody has gone after buds/backpage yet.

not sayin its right, but the idiots always get their way. besides, just because she is CEO doesn't mean she can ignore the PR/legal divisions completely as i'm sure that idea came from them.

awaiting her stance on firearms however.

 

[joeyl]

How about lawsuits over obviously fake counterfeited and grey market items(not to be sold in the U.S. )such as electronics or fragrances etc.. Ebay is a huge supplier of this fake garbage.

 

[clem]

Where do you think thieves get rid of their stolen loot?

 

[Kentucky_Rifleman]

wow...never knew Reagan signed an anti-carry law in CA. Gotta admit, I was surprised.

Listen closely: It has taken me a while to understand this, but it's an interesting concept.

When a politician is a senator or governor from state X, Illinois, say, or California, his job is to try to best represent the interests and will of his constituency. It is his ethical obligation. He must, on occasion, defend his constituent's interests against conflicting interests from other states, other regions.

When that same politician is elected to the office of President of the United States, his job MUST change to represent all of us as a collective nation. He can no longer just attend to the will of his original constituents, but must do what he can to compromise between the wants, needs, and ideas of an entire nation.

We often accuse politicians of flip-flopping on an issue over the years, but the changes in attitude may, on occasion, be from a change in job.

Reagan may have passed anti-gun legislation as governor, but if that was the will of the majority of Californians, then that was his job, however agreeable or distasteful he may have found it personally. For what it's worth, I don't recall him ever passing any as President of the U.S.

I don't make this case to defend Reagan; his record is public and every American has a right to judge the successes and failures of his presidency. Neither do I make this argument to defend Obama. Again, it is every individual's right to judge the successes and failures of his presidency. I'm also aware that the phrase "political ethics" may well be oxymoronic; the irony is not lost on me Still, it's a point worth considering.

KR

 

[Oyeboten]

e-bay does not 'sell' anything and never has.

e-bay is a for-a-fee ( fees plural ) service, which offers an Auction format, for people or businesses who do sell/auction items.

e-bay has no control over who is qualified to own anything, nor over how anyone uses anything they acquire through the service e-bay offers.


These considerations, to the degree that they exist or existed at all, would be the concern of the seller, or, the buyer also, according to their lights.

Given how insane and fatuous many of the e-bay policies are, and, how heavy handed and over-zealous their administrations are, I hate to think of this former 'ceo' ever being allowed into any position of power or influence since their record with e-bay showed them to be either nuts or ruthless or both in wishing to appease at everyone else's expence, some narrow special interest lobby.

 

[One-Time]

Listen closely: It has taken me a while to understand this, but it's an interesting concept.

When a politician is a senator or governor from state X, Illinois, say, or California, his job is to try to best represent the interests and will of his constituency. It is his ethical obligation. He must, on occasion, defend his constituent's interests against conflicting interests from other states, other regions.

When that same politician is elected to the office of President of the United States, his job MUST change to represent all of us as a collective nation. He can no longer just attend to the will of his original constituents, but must do what he can to compromise between the wants, needs, and ideas of an entire nation.

We often accuse politicians of flip-flopping on an issue over the years, but the changes in attitude may, on occasion, be from a change in job.

Reagan may have passed anti-gun legislation as governor, but if that was the will of the majority of Californians, then that was his job, however agreeable or distasteful he may have found it personally. For what it's worth, I don't recall him ever passing any as President of the U.S.

I don't make this case to defend Reagan; his record is public and every American has a right to judge the successes and failures of his presidency. Neither do I make this argument to defend Obama. Again, it is every individual's right to judge the successes and failures of his presidency. I'm also aware that the phrase "political ethics" may well be oxymoronic; the irony is not lost on me Still, it's a point worth considering.

KR

Their FIRST responsibility is to the Constitution and BoR regardless what his or her constituency want!!!

 

[Kentucky_Rifleman]

Their FIRST responsibility is to the Constitution and BoR regardless what his or her constituency want!!!

Unless the constituency wants to change the constitution, which has been done from time-to-time. I'm profoundly devoted to our constitutional rights, especially the 2A (which is why I'm here) but the constitution has amendments, because it has been tinkered with before.

As I've often said, any piece of legislation - no matter how onerous or freeing - can be altered or eliminated with subsequent legislation. It's also why I say we can never "win" the fight for our 2A rights. The battle over gun ownership will be here long after we're all gone. Even if it lays dormant for a time, it will eventually resurface. Consider the political upheaval of just the last 40 years in America.

If the time comes when the majority of Americans turn profoundly against gun ownership, then we may well see the constitution altered again. When a gun-ban inevitably fails, we'll see a general broadening of gun-rights. I believe we're in such an upswing now. The Clinton Assault rifle ban did little or nothing to prevent firearms-related violence, and recent studies have shown that violent crime rates are often significantly lower in areas where there are fewer restrictions on gun owners than in neighboring areas with more restrictive laws.

We're winning. Today.

KR

 

[One-Time]

Then they can try to amend the Constitution and BoR, that is not done by passing laws contrary to the Cons. or BoR, because until they are amended the laws violate our rights, and no one has a right to do that, regardless what their constituency wants

 

[TexasBill]

Reagan not only signed the legislation in California, he was also a staunch supporter of the Brady Bill. Something that is very interesting is the fact that both Reagan and Charlton Heston were originally Democrats. Heston was a liberal who supported Adlai Stevenson and John F. Kennedy and was a well-known activist in the Civil Rights movement. Believe it or not, Heston called for gun control in 1968 after the assassination of Bobby Kennedy. Reagan changed parties during the McCarthy era because it was politically expedient and meant he could keep working in Hollywood.

As far as Meg Whitman goes, I think it's time the California Democrats found themselves a good red dog candidate. It would give moderates and conservatives someone to vote for.

 

[Hatterasguy]

From ebays perspective it was a smart business move and I probably would have done the same thing. Its a huge liablity for only 1% of their sales, not worth the risk. As CEO she was responsible to the share holders to maximize their profits.

Ebay doesn't sell anything, they just provide a space for people to sell stuff. If someone screws up and sold a gun that was used in a high profile crime Ebay would be sued and suffer because of it. It was a no win situation for them.

Ebay should have spun it off and made their own Gunbroker. But they didn't and lost, which I'm happy about because they suck.

 

[Art Eatman]

Enuf pollyticks for one day...