Citibank to require clients to restrict gun sales

Citibank to require clients to restrict gun sales © Getty Images Citibank announced Thursday that it will start requiring clients to place some restrictions on gun sales, including banning the sale of firearms to anyone under the age of 21. The bank will also require retail clients to only sell guns to individuals who have passed a background check and to not sell bump stocks or high-capacity magazines.

From my own experience, all places already do this regardless of the financial institution that they happen to be in business with. For my own refutation of ignorance, could anyone post a state where one does not have to go through a background check for a firearm? More specifically, a rifle or shotgun.

This however, is new:

Citibank announced Thursday that it will start requiring clients to place some restrictions on gun sales, including banning the sale of firearms to anyone under the age of 21. The bank will also require retail clients to only sell guns to individuals who have passed a background check and to not sell bump stocks or high-capacity magazines.

That would be in addition to most laws that I know of and somewhat of a constitutional issue. This tidbit has also set my gut into motion (or perhaps it was the Taco Bell).

“We have waited for our grief to turn into action and see our nation adopt common-sense measure that would help prevent firearms form getting into the wrong hands. That action has sadly never come and as the weeks pass after the most recent mass shooting, it appears we are stuck in the same cycle of tragedy and inaction," the statement read.

thehill.com...

A plea to emotion. Perfect.

Smells an awful lot like the fascism that I've been hearing so much about lately.

a reply to: JinMI

Just curious why you would be upset about a bank placing restrictions on under 21s buying guns through their financial institutions?

a reply to: JinMI
I don't think you will have to worry. I look for gun owners to quickly drop citibank if they currently use them.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

I'm not upset. I surely do enjoy it when a company overplays its hand and informs folks to make acquire and utilize an educated opinion.

I wouldn't shop at a store that made me be age 25 to buy certain games, alcohol, tobacco etc.

Banks trying to be a bastion of morality? Bahaha, they're a joke. This is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Banks are the most morally bankrupt institutions in existence, I don't see how they think they can define what is right or wrong.

a reply to: Martin75

Indeed. However, it may but some business owners in a perilous position.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

One of the 3 largest recipients of the 2008 bailout to the tune of 25B along with JP Morgan and Wells Fargo.

Also, their fine for the criminal acts committed amounted to 285M. Nice deal eh?

a reply to: JinMI

Fair enough, I don't really see it as a bad thing. I'm all for restrictions on kids getting guns, in my opinion 21 is not unreasonable, it's the same for alcohol is it not in the U. S?

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Indeed. The age of 21 for alcohol use is 21, also handguns.

I don't agree on either of those laws. Is the goal to keep guns out of kids hands or people with murderous intent?

So...How is Citibank intend to acquire information on which of it's clientele sell firearms to an 18-year-old?

Do they ask the store (client) to voluntarily furnish Citibank with information on all it's sales?

Would that be legal?

If so, what means does Citibank have to enforce such blatant idiocy?

a reply to: JinMI

I'm not sure what the goal is really, i can't imagine it's really going to make it any harder for under 21s to get hold of a firearm. It's more like a token concept to pander to those that want restrictions.

There's literally no way of keeping weapons out of the hands of those with murderous intent.

This whole under 21 thing is fine! As long as you raise the age of adulthood to 21. Need your parents to take care of you, need parents permission for everything, no voting, no draft/military, no driving (under 21 kids kill more people in cars than pretty much anyone). If you're old enough to go to war you're old enough to own a gun. And since so many kids are "graduating" and still unable to do simple math and are illiterate let's add a few more grades/years of High School before we release them on the world. (/sarc)

The only caveat I'd be open to at this point is anyone who buys a gun should have to learn to shoot it, clean it etc for the first one or prove you can.

one more reason NOT to use #ibank .

in florida u can buy a shotgun at walmart with no background check

a reply to: JinMI

Private business can insist on whatever clauses they wish if you want to have dealings with them.
Your constitutional rights are unaffected, any claims to the contrary are the cries of a drama queen.
Don't like it, don't have any business dealings with that bank.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Never said anything to the contrary.

Thanks for playing!

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: JinMI

Fair enough, I don't really see it as a bad thing. I'm all for restrictions on kids getting guns, in my opinion 21 is not unreasonable, it's the same for alcohol is it not in the U. S?

Yet they will work to recruit a child of 17 and require them to take up arms to protect the US.

Old enough to die fighting

NOT old enough to own a firearm for protection.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: JinMI

Private business can insist on whatever clauses they wish if you want to have dealings with them.
Your constitutional rights are unaffected, any claims to the contrary are the cries of a drama queen.
Don't like it, don't have any business dealings with that bank.

Absolutely! Just ask the bakery who refused to bake the wedding cake for a gay couple.

originally posted by: Jusvistn

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: JinMI

Fair enough, I don't really see it as a bad thing. I'm all for restrictions on kids getting guns, in my opinion 21 is not unreasonable, it's the same for alcohol is it not in the U. S?

Yet they will work to recruit a child of 17 and require them to take up arms to protect the US.

Old enough to die fighting

NOT old enough to own a firearm for protection.

Military falls under Government and has literally nothing to do with this, the is a bank creating a policy, it's not law .

Its ok to violate civil rights so long as we have mob rule supporting it.

Ageism...apparently only legally relevant on the topside of chronology.