Bank of America Freezes Gun Manufacturer's Account, Company Owner Claims

page: 1
84
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
+64 more 
posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Bank of America Freezes Gun Manufacturer's Account, Company Owner Claims


cnsnews.com

In a Facebook post dated December 29, Sirochman wrote the following:

“My name is Joe Sirochman owner of American Spirit Arms...our Web site orders have jumped 500 percent causing our Web site e-commerce processing larger deposits to Bank of America. So they decided to hold the deposits for further review.

“After countless hours on the phone with Bank of America, I finally got a manager in the right department that told me the reason that the deposits were on hold for further review -- her exact words were -- ‘We believe you should not be selling guns and parts on the Internet.’
(visit the link for the full news article)



+66 more 
posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   
This is amazing if its true. A private entity like a bank certainly has every right to do business with whomever they like, but to freeze an existing customers account because they don’t like that particular customers Constitutionally guaranteed activities is really unprecedented. If BoA doesn’t want to deal with them, ask them to find another banker, but freezing their money is tantamount to theft.

cnsnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by SirMike
 


But of course it is a totally acceptable business practice of BOA to throw people out of their homes and hmmmmm, I wonder how many of those people committed suicide???

Big banks are scum of the earth! Talk about pot meet kettle........


+3 more 
posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by SirMike
 


What's even more 'ironic' is that BoA wont do business with a firearms manufacturer, but was recently convicted of laundering money for drug cartels.

www.policymic.com...



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by SirMike
 

Opportunity for an entrepreneur.

Start something like "Constitutionally Protected Freedom Bank".

edit on 7-1-2013 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Discussion taking place here



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 03:34 PM
link   
The federal government should step in and fine BoA big time for that. After all, its the government's job to screw people they don't like, not the bank's.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   
It's a sneaky way for TPTB to do something they're not legally allowed to do. This was a realistic fear the moment the majority of people started using banks and credit to buy things. The bank holds the power to stop certain kinds of transactions. Which isn't a problem unless all of them do. Which I'm sure would be one big coincidence.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   
I wonder how well BofA will handle their future liquidity issues if EVERY gun owner in the United States closes their account at about the same time. IF that's confirmed beyond just this? I'll insure everyone I know is aware and strongly encouraged to close their account with them.

OP, I don't doubt you or your source...I'd just want to be certain with my own name riding on saying it to people outside this site or the internet. BofA just came to our area in recent years too. It'd be a very VERY ignorant thing for them to have done ...given the unbelievable sales numbers showing just how many Americans really DO see things differently.

They're a bank or a political action group.... If they can't decide, their customers will for them I imagine.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by SirMike


This is amazing if its true. A private entity like a bank certainly has every right to do business with whomever they like, but to freeze an existing customers account because they don’t like that particular customers Constitutionally guaranteed activities is really unprecedented. If BoA doesn’t want to deal with them, ask them to find another banker, but freezing their money is tantamount to theft.

cnsnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)






The progressive mind is a pathetic thing indeed. Do what I say not what I do. They beg and cry for tolerance while never showing any in return.



Being progressive is a sickness of the mind. The saddest part is they will never see the simplest of truths.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 03:38 PM
link   
looks like i'll be opening a new bank account somewhere else and spending all the money i have in my boa account sooner than later
that's just shady business.

and i don't even own a gun!
edit on 7-1-2013 by oniraug because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   
I posted this in the other thread as well...

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 @ 04:04 PM
link   
well i guess he learned his lesson for using bank of america... next time maybe he will use a better bank like a local credit union..

I have no idea why anyone uses bank of american anyway their rates suck, they charge for everything, everytime i use to go there the line was so long and only 1 teller and they charge you to do biz at the window or tell you you can go to the atm and do it there because they are pushing people to go to atm only so they can make evern more money by not having to hire tellers...



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   
I think that it is up to the government of the US, guided by its constitution, to make laws which protect the public from unsecure methods of sale for rifles, pistols, parts, and ammo. These things are not the business of a bank to preside over.

That said, I am sure that there are grounds in law which protects the banks right to refuse service to any individual or company, without having to offer much by way of explanation. But the bank does not appear to be in the process of refusing that service, or providing a route by which the arms manufacturer in question might transfer his banking services to another bank. It appears as if they have frozen the account, which is not refusal of service, and in fact will, unless I am very much mistaken, take time to undo, so that the manufacturer can transfer thier funds someplace less draconian.

Unless Spirit have violated federal or state law, by trading the way they do on the internet, then there can be little legitimate reason for this action on the part of Bank of America. Of course, my understanding of US law regarding financial transactions, and the use of the internet thereof is not extensive, but the US does operate on a free market basis to a degree, just as the UK does. The basic function of such an economy cannot work unless some similar systems are in place, as those I have described, therefore, it seems that Bank of America could well be, if not breaking the law themselves, leaving themselves open to civil action taken on behalf of Spirit.

Now, I can understand the concern of anyone who asks, is it safe to sell guns to people on the internet, bearing in mind how easily people are impersonated on the world wide web. Identity theft is one of the growing underground markets these days, and with the right know how, a person can set themselves up as anything from a kid, to an investment banker.

But, unless the law pertaining to e-commerce, as it relates to the sale of firearms and the equipment, spares and consumables required to own one goes, states that Spirit are committing an offence against the law, in any state in which, or with which they trade, then I fail to see the reason why any large bank would risk taking on the moral arguement, when they stand to loose a large account, and outrage a whole sector of the business community, as well as one of the largest lobby groups you could hope to assemble.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 05:46 PM
link   
B of A is a whore of a Bank regardless of this latest development... I pulled my money from them years ago... for any bank to to put its nose into the operations of a legal and legit business is just ridiculous... B of A would not look twice into financial dealings or ethics of its political account holders

Nevermind the fact that B of A loaned the Obama campaign $15 million dollars in the wee hours of the election campaign and the fact the they ponied up $20 million for the DNC in Charlotte.


While campaign loans are not unusual, Obama’s connections to Bank of America are politically charged. Warren Buffett, Obama donor and namesake of the infamous “Buffett Rule,” invested $5 billion in Bank of America, ostensively to help the ailing financial institution recover from a bad economy.

In September, two weeks after OFA took out the loan, Bank of America announced a plan to lay off 16,000 workers by the end of the year.

Also, Bank of America contributed $20 million toward the cost of the Democrat National Convention in Charlotte while Bank of America stadium, home to the Carolina Panthers, was scheduled to host Obama’s acceptance speech.

www.examiner.com...



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Tantamount?
It is theft.
I have to hope those words about "shouldn't be selling arms on the internet" came from some individual not authorized to be speaking for BoA.
If that's a BoA policy then screw em.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 



If that's a BoA policy then screw em.


It's an inherited policy from their upstream payment processor, First Data.

"If" BofA really froze his account, it was probably for legitimate fraud detection purposes. They don't just go around freezing accounts for no reason.

And, to be fair, we've only heard one side of the story.

Anyone ever stop to think that this could all be a clever viral marketing scheme?

1. Use the highly publicized gun control debate as a launch pad
2. Make up a story about the evil big banks against the little guy
3. Get your gun website a ton of publicity and public sentiment.

Cha-ching...

Pretty brilliant, actually.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 06:35 PM
link   
When I bought my business it came with a BoA account and another local bank after 2 months of trying to get the accounts straightened out and the loss of thousands of dollard for a couple of weeks I went to my credit union for the business. Shouldn't have waited so long no apology nothing Life is good now



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by SirMike
 


wow, this is why i do NOT USE BANK OF AMERICA. they have way to many problems that i will not even take a chance at a head ache to deal with. there is a web sight dedicated to how much that bank sucks.

either way i hope the owner of the manufacturer changes banks over this



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Zarniwoop
 

The gun manufacturers are running a backlog for orders right now extending out 12+ MONTHS with the recent explosion in demand. I'd think it highly unlikely they'd try for publicity stunts right now. In all likelihood they literally have orders out past where a ban makes their product illegal to sell..and they know it.

This happened in 2008/2009 as well and the backlog then was absolutely real as well as covering almost all reloading equipment as well then, so I don't doubt that part a bit. If anything, I'd imagine it'd be further backed out but they have to draw the line somewhere for where to say no. There'd just be little or nothing to gain for the seller here?





top topics
 
84
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join