Citibank has hopped on the corporate virtue signaling bandwagon, announcing a set of oppressive anti-gun rules any businesses dealing with it must follow. They make a point of saying anyone who doesn't agree to let Citi set their gun sale policy can take a hike. I have my doubts that this policy is legal. Can a bank discriminate against customers over political issues? Could they refuse to do business with anyone who backed Trump? Let's not forget, this is a bank operating under exacting federal regulations, and also a bank the taxpayers bailed out not that long ago. Their freedom to impose social policies on customers should be severely limited. If this is legal, Trump could easily issue regulations barring it. Since he has now dropped the NRA like he did Stormy Daniels, I'm not holding my breath. ********************************** Citigroup announced Thursday it’s implementing restrictions on client firearm sales, making it the first major bank to impose such gun control measures. In an email to employees provided to Infowars, Citigroup Chief Executive Officer Mike Corbat detailed new policies applying to “small business, commercial and institutional clients, as well as credit card partners.” The policy is ostensibly “designed to respect the rights of responsible gun owners while helping keep firearms out of the wrong hands.” Citi’s new “US Commercial Firearms Policy” requires firearms only be sold to people age 21 or older, that gun purchasers pass a background check, and restricts sales of bump stocks or “high-capacity magazines.” If retail clients refuse to enact Citi’s “best practices over the coming months,” they are free to part ways with the bank, Corbat wrote. “If they opt not to, we will respect their decision and work with them to transition their business away from Citi,” reads the email to employees. Additionally, potential clients would be screened to ensure their businesses adhere to the new policy. Corbat, who claims to be “an avid outdoorsman and responsible gun owner,” says the new restrictions are a great compromise for Second Amendment advocates and anti-gunners. “We don’t have the perfect solution to supporting our Constitution while keeping our children and grandchildren safe,” he writes, adding, “But we shouldn’t let that stop us from doing our part.” The bank’s announcement comes in the wake of a massive gun control push following a school shooting in Parkland, Florida that left 17 dead and several injured. https://www.infowars.com/citigroup-imposes-restrictions-on-client-gun-sales/
Good for Shittybank. If the NRA really cared about the 2nd amendment they would allow everyone have grenades which are also arms. Weak on the 2nd, they deserve to lose. Maybe time to use Shittybank? The bank of the winning side. Awww.. inforwars.. probably just all lies.
Meh... just add Citibank to the boycott list alongside Kelloggs, Target and Starbucks. Boycotting is easy and satisfying.
Very interesting... Credit Card Company Requirements That Merchants Not Sell Guns to 18-to-20-Year-Olds The companies likely must make exemptions for those states that ban the merchants from discriminating based on age. Eugene Volokh|Mar. 22, 2018 7:52 pm Citigroup announced that it will "require new retail sector clients or partners to adhere to .... restrict the sale of firearms for individuals under 21 years of age." But what if the retailer is in one of the states that generally ban age discrimination in public accommodations, and include 18-to-20-year-olds in that ban? (Some states only ban age discrimination against those 21 and above, or 40 and above; let's set those aside.) Any credit card companies that have such policies must exempt retailers' actions in those no-age-discrimination states. When a law bans some action, it also usually (explicitly or implicitly) bans others from trying to cause that action. It's a crime for you to kill someone (without adequate justification), so it's a crime for me to try to pressure you into killing him. It's a tort for you to libel someone (assuming you know the factual allegations you're making are false and defamatory), so it's a tort for me to offer you money to do so. Likewise, generally speaking, for antidiscrimination law. Consider, for instance, Michigan law; the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (Mich. Comp. Laws. §§ 37.2301-.2304) bans age discrimination in retail sales, and § 37.2701 likewise provides that no person shall "[a]id, abet, incite, compel, or coerce a person to engage in a violation of this act" or "[w]illfully obstruct or prevent a person from complying with this act" or "interfere with a person in the exercise or enjoyment of ... any right granted or protected by this act." If a credit card company demands that stores illegally discriminate, then it's inciting, compeling, and coercing violations within the meaning of the law, obstructing the stores' complying with the law, and interfering with 18-to-20-year-olds' enjoyment of rights granted by the law. If a credit card company required its business partners not to sell wedding cakes to gays and lesbians, that would violate the law in those states that ban sexual orientation discrimination by such businesses -- and the ban would apply not just to the cake shops, but also to the credit card company. The same is true for age discrimination in gun sales; the legal analysis is the same (whatever you might think about the moral issues). Now this is just a matter of state law. If a state bans rifle and shotgun sales to 18-to-20-year-olds, then of course stores would be required to discriminate against them. (Federal law already bans handgun sales by gun dealers to under-21-year-olds.) Likewise, if a state wanted to exempt gun sales from the age discrimination ban, it could do so (though I know of no states that do). But if a state bans age discrimination in gun sales -- as several states (likely about a dozen) do -- then credit card companies can't insist that their business partners violate the law in those states. And the same applies to the cities and counties that have similar ordinances, which are sometimes broader than state law provides.
I think all this restrictions to not sell guns to people under 21 is BS. It is a pure discrimination based on age, and will not hold in court. What next tomorrow, no gun sales to people with short hair??? I am 100% on board for 21 being the age when someone can buy any gun, but it must pass congress to become the law. Until then, it is illegal discrimination.
age is not a protected class except for old people in the workforce. It’s legal for private businesses to discriminate based on sexuality. This was our VP’s signature legislation while governor of Indiana. In fact true conservatives should be attacking those laws that prevent private organizations discriminating based on age.