BofA: We believe you should not be selling guns and parts on the internet

page: 2
24
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ANNED
 





All guns that are being advertised on the internet have to go through a FFL dealer and have a background check done.


This is False! There are many internet websites like Florida Gun Trader where you can advertise the private sale of a firearm, that do not require the use of a FFL.

You are however, by law, required to complete the transaction FTF, or Face to Face...




posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt
This is False! There are many internet websites like Florida Gun Trader where you can advertise the private sale of a firearm, that do not require the use of a FFL. You are however, by law, required to complete the transaction FTF, or Face to Face...


What is wrong with that?

Why does the government need to know who owns firearms? I wonder for what purpose they would need that information? It is obviously not to stop violent people from using them.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Possible exact words prior to the quoted statement...

"After reviewing the contract you signed with us..."


HER EXACT WORDS WERE …
..” WE BELIEVE YOU SHOULD NOT BE SELLING GUNS and PARTS ON THE INTERNET “


That would be a boring explanation, though.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zarniwoop
Possible exact words prior to the quoted statement...

"After reviewing the contract you signed with us..."


HER EXACT WORDS WERE …
..” WE BELIEVE YOU SHOULD NOT BE SELLING GUNS and PARTS ON THE INTERNET “


That would be a boring explanation, though.




BofA Account Manager to Bank Manager, "I just signed up a new business account."
BofA Bank Manager, "Good job! Who with?"
A.M. "A company called American Spirit Arms."
B.M. "American Spirit Arms? What do they sell?"
A.M. "Dunno, Jazz Hands?"
edit on 7-1-2013 by hashslinger because: oops



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by hashslinger
 



BofA Account Manager to Bank Manager, "I just signed up a new business account."
BofA Bank Manager, "Good job! Who with?"
A.M. "A company called American Spirit Arms."
B.M. "American Spirit Arms? What do they sell?"
A.M. "Dunno, Jazz Hands?"



I think you unwittingly nailed it.


Account managers get incentives for signing up new accounts.

The account doesn't necessarily have to be named American Spirit Arms. It could show up as "ASA Inc" or something generic like that.

BofA is a huge organization with thousands of accounts. A little one like this is a needle in a haystack.

The increased sales triggered an automatic fraud alert on the account and they were forced to look at it in more detail.


And the biggest issue here is...
Banks value their revenue streams much, much more than they value arguments regarding gun control.

If they could find a way to save his account, they would, but probably not now after he's gone all viral on them



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ararisq

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt
This is False! There are many internet websites like Florida Gun Trader where you can advertise the private sale of a firearm, that do not require the use of a FFL. You are however, by law, required to complete the transaction FTF, or Face to Face...


What is wrong with that?

Why does the government need to know who owns firearms? I wonder for what purpose they would need that information? It is obviously not to stop violent people from using them.


I, personally, do not see anything wrong with it. It fully embraces the 2nd Amendment, and is our right, as an American citizen.
Unfortunately, the lawmakers, some not all, think I should get their permission to excercise my rights! Or, that I , an individual, should notify them, about every business move that I make. While they let corporations run wild, and steal, like there is no tomorrow!

If they weren't so afraid of retribution, for all of the criminal acts that they, themselves have perpetrated, against the American people, they wouldn't have such a problem, with guns...Because we KNOW, it isn't about the guns, that the gun-grabbers want to disarm law-abiding citizens, over. They're afraid of losing their power and control over us, and nothing more!

Perhaps, they should have done the job that they were hired to do, instead of letting greed, dictate their votes.
Then they would have nothing to fear, from an armed populace...

DO you agree?
edit on 1/7/2013 by GoOfYFoOt because: sp..



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by GoOfYFoOt
 





Then they would have nothing to fear, from an armed populace...

DO you agree?


Someone, I forget who it was, once said you should "Fear the government that fears your guns".

BoA may be technically right, as has been pointed out, because of their terms of service agreement. But if you want to do business with any big company you have to sign an agreement of some kind. You should see the 1/2" thick stack of paper just to renew my apartment lease in Georgia.

You can't win because in most, if not all, of the agreements of that type "The Large Print Giveth, The Small Print Taketh Away".

ETA...

Someone earlier in the thread mentioned leaving a bank with a negative account balance when the bank tried to shaft them. I had a similar experience with a bank I won't name here where they tried to mess with me on my checking account to the tune of several hundred dollars. The tactic they used has since been outlawed; to wit, processing all payouts prior to processing deposits and credits no matter the order they were received. That allowed them to generate multiple NSF charges even when the actual amount that was NSF for the transaction day was less than the lowest single payout.

I also had a credit card account with them and it was to the tune of almost $10,000. I closed my checking account and opened a new one at another bank and then maxed out the credit card and stopped paying on it.

The bank did the financial equivalent of coming to a gunfight with me armed only with a knife. They may have won the battle of the checking account but they lost the war.
edit on 7-1-2013 by happykat39 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Y'all are getting mad at the wrong financial institution and for the wrong reasons.

Bank of America is a reseller that uses First Data to process credit card transactions.


Unlike most merchant account sales organizations, First Data is an actual processor. While they do have a small direct sales force, First Data relies heavily upon partnerships with third party resellers and sub-ISOs to sell its credit card processing services. Two of these resellers include a couple of the largest banks in the United States, Wells Fargo Merchant Services and Bank of America Merchant Services.

Source

First Data has clearly stated their position in the past...


“First Data processes more card transactions for gun sales in a face to face environment than any other credit card processor,” her statement said. “We do not have a position in the debate about gun control policy. Our credit policies center around certain transactions that occur in a non face-to-face environment and involve third parties to which First Data has no contractual relationship, and therefore pose business concerns about the risk of certain types of transactions.”


Source

Their policy is face-to-face credit card transactions when it comes to guns.

Either this it wasn't explained clearly to Joe Sirochman, or he is not telling the whole story.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 05:45 PM
link   
If Corporations cannot be phsyically imprisoned like a private citizen, then they shouldn't be allowed the same rights as a private citizen. This single devilish concept was the beginning of the end of 'By the People' and the Individual Soverignty our constitution created for us.



Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.
-Ambrose Bierce



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


yah i droped them like a hot potatoe a looong time ago, service sucks and so do the people. tried to charge me 250 bucks one time even after i pointed out it was there fault. lady was trying to tell me i should pay it off first then they would give me money back, im like wtf are you smokin lady, how bout i call the cops down here and have you arrested.. after about 15 mins screaming that in the bank lobby she waived the fee that they screwed up in the first place HAH. then i closed my account that day in the same bank lol.

now i keep it in small banks.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 05:49 AM
link   
I've never cared for BoA, and everyone has their right to what they think. But to with hold their money like this just because they don't agree with them is just low even for a bank. BoA would be within their rights to give them their money and tell them to take it elsewhere, but holding the money back for that long just looks like a blatant attempt to hurt the company.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Helig
 


Sorry, but this is his fault. Sellers have ran in to this with selling accessories in online stores. Stores have reported issues with BOA for nearly a decade. I had a friend that managed a store and had the same thing happen with in store sells through BOA merchant accounts. He switched to a credit union and hasn't had any more issues.

BOA actually has something in their terms and conditions about not selling guns. They should have read the contract.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Helig
 


I was guilty of lagging in this arena despite knowing for years that it is the best way to go, but finally made the jump...everyone should switch to credit unions! They're financially sound, don't get involved in "investing" as the banks do, outside of savings and loans, they do not pay the taxes banks do (by law), and so can offer better interest rates on both savings and loans, and, without a doubt, their customer service is leaps and bounds (and I'm talking moonwalk leaps and bounds) better than that of banks. After all, its their raison de etre (pardon my lack of accents, etc.) whereas the banks exist solely to make as much profit as possible.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Helig
 


Why is anyone, person or business still banking with these clowns?

Not surprised at all.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 01:15 PM
link   
BoA has every right to close his account for what ever reason they want. They do not however have a right to freeze his account and prohibit him access to the funds. They should have told him his only option was to close the aco# and withdraw the money if they did not want his business. From my reading earlier on this that is not what they did. The article I read indicated that they had frozen his aco# and would not let him withdraw any of the money. You would think it was not wise to steal money from someone in the FIREARMS industry!!!



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 01:21 PM
link   
The almost completely deregulated BofA wants to try and stop a deregulated industry?

Great. First place to start is with yourself.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Flag this, ya jackass!



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 05:59 PM
link   
I'd love to retaliate against BoA for this but I quit doing all business with them several years ago.It was around the time TARP passed, I believe.

I think a good way to retaliate is to refuse to do business with merchants that use Bank of America as their bank. How do you find that out? Most businesses don't leave a deposit slip lying around or advertise who they bank with. To find out what bank a merchant you do business with uses, just look at the back of a cleared check often there will be a stamp with the bank name on it, or if not there will be a routing number. Here is a link from BoA itself that will tell you the routing numbers for its branches in states that it operates. Oh, and don't just stop doing business with those that bank with BoA, let them know why they are no longer worthy of your money.

While typing this reply I went through my checks that I've written over the past few months. Luckily there is only one company I do business with that uses Bank of America. Unfortunately, it's my storage building we put a deceased family member's belongings in. So, that means I have to find a new storage building that doesn't use BoA and move an entire house worth of stuff to it. It's something I've been meaning to do anyway but saving $10/month wasn't worth the work it would cause me to do. Now it is.

I'm glad SO chimed in about card holder agreements and specifics of that. I will be sure to look at them closer in the future.

HSBC and Wachovia helped drug dealers launder billions of dollars with no criminal prosecutions and fines that are probably less than the money they made helping launder the money. Bank of America hassles its customers and delays payments to its customers who sell a legal product. My question is why? It's pretty evident the TBTF banks have no social conscious whatsoever when you look at the past ten years of their business from NINJA loans to bailouts to robo-signing to laundering money for drug dealers and terrorists. Why on this issue do they feign some type faux decency? I'm open to ideas about this but I do know one thing to be sure:

LIFE IS GOOD FOR THE BANKSTERS



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Helig
 


I've not heard anything good about Bank of America.... From what I can tell, they're evil and will do anything they can to steal from their customers.


MBF

posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 10:19 PM
link   
As long as a customer is not doing anything illegal, BOA has no right to dictate to a customer what they should be doing.





new topics
top topics
 
24
<< 1   >>

log in

join