« Concurring Opinions insight on Heller | Main | New work by Prof. Cottrol and Diamond »
More on Citibank
Story here. It terminated the account of a licensed firearms dealer, and is withholding $75,000 of it, and is giving conflicting, and rather foolish, explanations. First, the ground was that he was making illegal sales to persons in other states. NSSF pointed out that's perfectly lawful, so long as he ships to a licensed dealer in the other state, for pickup there (interstate *sale* is lawful, it's the *delivery* that is controlled). Then it says it has some sort of policy against non-face-to-face sales, but only in certain types of businesses. Which policy was probably invented after the first justification was proven wrong.
Hat tip to Jack Anderson....
Doug in Colorado gives a comment for some reason blocked by the spam filter:
Ryan, I like your attitude! But still, that's a policy decision that could be easily reversed (i.e. they could drop firearms or ammo again if a bureaucrat within the company says..."the profits and even the irritated customers aren't worth the legal liability, and besides, it's for the children"
Then where do you go?
That's why CDNN's case is important...no credit cards for non-face to face purchases is a bullship policy, but it's policy...next they could say, no credit card transactions for any firearms or ammo purchase. It's money, yes, but if they're willing to give up the money, they can cut off the supply of guns and ammo, and corporations do funnier things than that every day.
6 Comments | Leave a comment
Well, the readers of this blog (and mine) are the ones to put an end to this blatant discrimination. We simply cut up our CitiBank cards, and return the heavy weight of their future mailings to us back to them in their own franked envelopes.
In Citi's industry, it's all about bottom line. When Citi's botom line begins to take a hit, they will change their policy.
If we are going to deny them business, we also need to pump up the business of their closest cometitor, to give ourselves a force-multiplying effect.
Anyone out there hazard a guess as to which card-issuer is Citi's traditional competitor?
Unfortunately, First Data/Citi merchant credit services has the lion's share of the field. It may take nothing less than a lawsuit, which I gather CDNN may have already initiated, to stop this illegal interference in lawful interstate commerce. They can set their own policies and hold their merchant customers to them until and unless they are lawfully forced to do otherwise.
While I have nothing in particular against WalMart and their ilk, there's a downside for buying guns and ammo at the Big Box type stores...once the Mom and Pop shops are out of business, what's to prevent K-Wal-Big-Outdoors Sporting Goods from saying..."eh, we don't want to sell guns or ammo any more." ? It's a policy decision, not a law, but it effectively infringes the hell out of the rights to keep and bear arms...or, maybe you can keep and bear the arms, but good luck finding ammo, or powder, or primers.
"there's a downside for buying guns and ammo at the Big Box type stores"
I always thought of this in a different way. I figure that buying from them ensures that they will carry them in the future. Locally our walmart recently said that they would stop selling firearms in 2008. After they got the petition and angry comments that I started and they saw how many people would stop buying anything from them if they did that they changed their mind and the issue was gone. (the original reason they said they were going to stop selling firearms was that they did not sell enough to justify the space that they couldn't use. After the petition they released a statement saying something to the effect of they now realize that selling firearms all though not profitable is a convenience service that keeps their customers happy-- something like letting people cash checks-- not profitable, but it gets people in there.) It wasn't hard for me to take a stand like that, considering that the only thing I go to walmart for is for a rifle or shotgun that they have at prices that are great because the price drops as they sit there not being bought (they get below what I can get them for as a dealer even...)-- but I was quite happily surprised how quickly I could get a few thousand names from people that had never bought a gun from there who would boycott them for taking what they saw as an anti-gun position even though it was really supposedly and economic position.
The only way to speak to a corporation-- any corporation-- is with your wallet. If I could afford it I would pay off and never use Citi for anything. As it is now I have cut my cards and sold my stock in them-- but it is going to take a while to pay them off completely. In the mean time they are still getting my interest to play games with law abiding people.
If anyone starts a legal defense fund for this dealer, I will be the first one to contribute.
----
Before anyone says, "why did you shoot yourself in the foot?" Let me just say, I would much rather not make money than to have someone not be able to get a gun. Being a firearms dealer is more of a public service to me than a business. Other people around here want $30 or even $40 to just have a gun sent to them that someone bought off the internet. That is to me, un-American. That is a serious chunk when you just want something like a cheap sks.
card citibank credit login http://citibankcreditcard.forumi.bg >citibank card credit home
"eh, we don't want to sell guns or ammo any more."
That is when the marketplace steps up and fills the void. Where there are dollars to be spent there will be people providing the service to get them.
"people around here want $30 or even $40 to just have a gun sent to them that someone bought off the internet. That is to me, un-American."
That is completely American and good economics. You might find it distasteful to your morals but it does not make it un-American. They are charging a price for a service that the market is willing to bear. Undercut them and put them out of business.
I'm confused. Since when are Citibank's customers responsible for obeying Citibank policies?
The $75K question is since when are Citibank's customers liable for obeying Citibank policies?