If Washington can't / won't regulate gun sales. ... can banks?

Fuck credit card companies. When the government crushes them with crippling taxes and prohibits their exorbitant interest rates, it will be a grand day. Did I mention -- fuck credit card companies?

But yeah, to Ragu's point... go ahead, see what happens. Next should be booze.

 

The companies don't process payments for those transactions because they fear it violates federal law, not because they believe it is 'right.'

 

We accept that corporations have lots of discretion in how and with whom they choose to do business. And how and with whom they express their politics and their ethical imperatives.

Hobby Lobby comes to mind.

Not sure this is so different.

 

I don’t see any reason why banks, and credit card companies shouldn’t be able to do this if they choose to.

And, none of them will.

But, I hope folks try their very hardest to get them to.

 

Hobby Lobby is very different. It sued to not have to follow a federal law. It's argument was based in part on the fact that it is a closely held company and its owners had strict religious beliefs that were in conflict with the law. A public corporation cannot make the same claim.

 

I know why they do it.

It still means they can do it.

 

And yet Citizens' United would have me believe we grant personhood to publicly held corporations so they might express their Constitutional rights.

If Chase or Citi decide not to provide gun transactions, I'm sure a perfectly persuasive argument can be made on their behalf.

And as YF suggests, there will be some consequence. Including other credit card companies advertising their willingness to fund whatever rocket launcher John and Jane Doe want to buy.

 

Again, the case cited isn't on point. Citizens United was prohibited from airing a political documentary. The question for the courts was whether a corporation has the same right to political speech that an individual does. It did not grant 'personhood' and political speech is very different from business activity.

They only way I think CC companies could be blocked is if the shareholders brought a breach of fiduciary duty claim, but that is likely a long shot given how much discretion corporate officers are allowed. Then you could see Micheal Bloomberg-NRA proxy battles. Pass the popcorn.

 

Honest question, if somebody bought $5,000 worth of guns and ammo with, say, a Costco Citi card, and used it in a mass shooting is there any chance Citi and Costco could be found liable?

Can any lender be held liable if it doesn't do due diligence before handing out money? Is that the reason a bank makes you get home owners insurance to get a mortgage?

 

It was suggested upthread that letting business regulate morality is a bad idea.

I'm just making the point that we routinely do that already, and grant businesses lots of practical discretion and ethical latitude in doing so. As do shareholders.

If Capitol One says "no guns," cardholders and shareholders and retailers can all vote with their feet.

 

That's because the UIGEA and its subsequent regulations were written to foist that responsibility upon the banking industry.
It's bad practice.

Are you limiting this restrictive banking policy to credit cards?
Can I use a check or debit card to purchase what I like?

If this is intended to be a market solution, can I promote and advertise that my bank allows gun and ammunition purchases?
Seems to me there would be a possible market for customers who want to transact with banks that are anti-gun and customers who want to transact with banks that are pro-choice on the issue of guns.
Works as long as it goes both ways.

 

I don't want any practice that encourages more people to skip the background check process and go black market/under-the-table on their gun purchases.

I want people using their credit cards to make these transactions so we know who is buying the guns.

I have a bigger problem with who isn't being weeded out by those background checks.