How Banks Could Control Gun Sales if Washington Won’t

[HCTC]

How Banks Could Control Gun Sales if Washington Won’t (Published 2018)

As Corporate America espouses “social responsibility,” the financial industry could help limit sales of assault weapons, our columnist writes.

www.nytimes.com

EXCERPT:
For the past year, chief executives have often talked about the new sense of moral responsibility that corporations have to help their communities and confront social challenges even when Washington won’t.

In the aftermath of the school shooting in Parkland, Fla., that killed 17 students and staff members — and at a time when Washington shows little interest in limiting the sales of assault weapons — there’s a real opportunity for the business community to fill the void and prove that all that talk about moral responsibility isn’t hollow.

Here’s an idea.

What if the finance industry — credit card companies like Visa, Mastercard and American Express; credit card processors like First Data; and banks like JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo — were to effectively set new rules for the sales of guns in America?

 

[exnihilo]

Were is the moral resolve of banks in regards to illegal drugs, abortion, and pornography, just to name a few? They take that money which is all immorally gained. Gun money isn’t immoral at all. I wouldn’t be surprised if banks do this. They have done things like this in the past.

 

[DaveBj]

What if the finance industry — credit card companies like Visa, Mastercard and American Express; credit card processors like First Data; and banks like JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo — were to effectively set new rules for the sales of guns in America?

How would that have affected me, for example? I paid cash for mine.

D

 

[HCTC]

How would that have affected me, for example? I paid cash for mine.

The premise is that businesses would not want to lose the ability to make credit card sales in general so they would not carry assault-type firearms. As I read it, the suggestion is in regard to only particular types of guns.

 

[MidwestGuy]

The premise is that businesses would not want to lose the ability to make credit card sales in general so they would not carry assault-type firearms. As I read it, the suggestion is in regard to only particular types of guns.

I think you are underestimating the number of law abiding gun owners in this country that would take exception to that action. I think the credit card companies would feel the backlash pretty quickly.

Not sure how it is everywhere else, but gun ownership is not a democrat or republican political point in this area. Democrats and Republicans alike are for the most part pro second amendment. Probably has more to do with rural versus city center than party affiliation.

 

[Theo520]

What if the finance industry — credit card companies like Visa, Mastercard and American Express; credit card processors like First Data; and banks like JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo — were to effectively set new rules for the sales of guns in America?

Such a move would flop completely. They’d probably be sued, and lose. Someone would also seize on the competitive moment and issue a Patriot or NRA branded credit card.

 

[Suudy]

Such a move would flop completely. They’d probably be sued, and lose. Someone would also seize on the competitive moment and issue a Patriot or NRA branded credit card.

I hope the former would not be utilized. If banks want to lose revenue for something they consider important, then I say go for it. The latter, however, I see as completely effective. Somebody will fill in those gaps.

 

[MonteRCMS]

The banks have been bailed out. They can’t even run their own businesses!!!

And you want them to control guns???

https://dailycaller.com/2018/02/19/ohio-sheriff-takes-stopping-school-shootings-into-his-own-hands-offers-free-concealed-carry-classes-for-teachers/

 

[Theo520]

I hope the former would not be utilized. If banks want to lose revenue for something they consider important, then I say go for it. The latter, however, I see as completely effective. Somebody will fill in those gaps.

I think the court route would be appropriate if it was VISA itself that refused to process certain transactions.

Of course the gun shop could also use “LGBT BDSM unlimited” as the processing shell company, that name would never get restricted

 

[niceatheist]

I’m curious as to what grounds you would imagine you have to sue under. You have a contract with Visa (and if it’s like mine, it’s a few pages of dense print), and a big part of that contract basically allows Visa to change the terms of the contract as it sees fit. Since you agreed to those terms, if Visa decides it will no longer process payments for certain kinds of items, what do you imagine the nature of the lawsuit would be?

 

[Theo520]

I’m curious as to what grounds you would imagine you have to sue under. You have a contract with Visa (and if it’s like mine, it’s a few pages of dense print), and a big part of that contract basically allows Visa to change the terms of the contract as it sees fit. Since you agreed to those terms, if Visa decides it will no longer process payments for certain kinds of items, what do you imagine the nature of the lawsuit would be?

If a baker can’t discriminate in what customers he chooses to serve, what make you think VISA can discriminate against legal purchases of another product?

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

I’m curious as to what grounds you would imagine you have to sue under. You have a contract with Visa (and if it’s like mine, it’s a few pages of dense print), and a big part of that contract basically allows Visa to change the terms of the contract as it sees fit. Since you agreed to those terms, if Visa decides it will no longer process payments for certain kinds of items, what do you imagine the nature of the lawsuit would be?

If a baker can’t discriminate in what customers he chooses to serve, what make you think VISA can discriminate against legal purchases of another product?

Those are two entirely different kinds of cases, and I think you know it. Any company extending credit of any kind can lawfully put restrictions on how that credit is used. If you try to fight this in court, the first thing the credit card company’s lawyer is going to do is pull out your contract with them, and point out where they reserve the right to limit how the card (which actually and technically remains the credit card company’s property, BTW) can be used.

This kind of sophistry, of comparing potential civil rights complaints over cake bakers and gay marriages, to contract law may seem like a winner on an Internet forum, but when it comes to customer agreements, good luck to you, but you won’t get far.

 

[Theo520]

No, they aren’t ‘entirely different’

The credit company would have to show the purchase had higher risk of default, and there is no supporting proof of that. Heck, even when there exists a higher risk of loss a business can’t discriminate.

 

[niceatheist]

No, they aren’t ‘entirely different’

The credit company would have to show the purchase had higher risk of default, and there is no supporting proof of that. Heck, even when there exists a higher risk of loss a business can’t discriminate.

No, they don’t have to show how the purchases is a higher risk. They can simply amend the TOS agreement to say “This credit card cannot be used to purchase the following items…” Since it’s their money, until you pay it back, they’re basically like any lender. This is a contract law issue, not a civil rights issue. Lenders can and do exert their legal rights all the time over what you can buy with the money they’re lending you.

 

[Theo520]

So I could just change the TOS and discriminate against the purchase of alcohol, or cigarettes?

FYI, the credit card sees a transaction amount, not your itemized receipt. They don’t know if you bought a tent or a gun from your outdoor store.

 

[niceatheist]

So I could just change the TOS and discriminate against the purchase of alcohol, or cigarettes?

Very likely yes. That’s what sucks about Terms of Service agreements of any kind, but sadly the Supreme Court has given companies free license (hence the “binding arbitration” clauses in EULAs which basically forbid class action lawsuits are perfectly legal).

FYI, the credit card sees a transaction amount, not your itemized receipt. They don’t know if you bought a tent or a gun from your outdoor store.

That much is true. Actually policing it might be very hard. I never said it was a good idea, even at accomplishing what it sets out to do, but most certainly if you sign a contract with a company that allows that company to effectively alter key parts of the contract (which all of us do every time we get a credit card or buy any number of services), well, you should have, as they say, read the fine print.

 

[exnihilo]

I think the court route would be appropriate if it was VISA itself that refused to process certain transactions.

Of course the gun shop could also use “LGBT BDSM unlimited” as the processing shell company, that name would never get restricted

Banks are a cartel that is supported with monopoly rights to print money and have their business insured by the government. As a result they really should have an obligation to serve everyone without distinction. If they can take money from pornographers, drug dealers and other immoral trades then they should take money from a legitimate business that supports a constitutional right. Of course the banking system is really one of the ways devised to take away our rights and run by people who would be glad to see our culture destroyed.