CitiBank to Dictate to Merchants the Age at Which Customers Can Buy Guns

[BvBPL]

Citibank has stated it will require its merchant-clients to restrict gun sales in the United States to purchasers of 21 years or older. Citibank joins Dick’s Sporting Goods and Wal*Mart and other retailers who have sworn off selling firearms to individuals less than 21 years of age. 18 years is the federal age minimum for the purchase of long guns.


As pleased as one may be to have another influential voice in the debate about firearm laws, one might also be concerned as a bank starts to entered into the political debate regarding constitutional rights that are not directly related to the core of the business. Where politicians may have abrogated their duties to pass laws relevant to the public interest, having banking interests step in to dictate policy does not seem a superior answer. If market forces foreclose upon the exercise of rights within the commercial sphere, we progress towards a society where assurance of those rights is worthless lip service.

 

[rah]

American Express rejoices.

 

[dutchfire]

The answer is robust anti-trust law.
The answer is always robust anti-trust law.

 

[civvver]

The answer is robust anti-trust law.
The answer is always robust anti-trust law.

I agree, as long as there are alternative choices in banking it shouldn't be a big deal. The issue is our anti trust laws suck so a big bank monopoly could come along and restrict purchasing against whatever political opponent they want for example. Like hate oil industry and want to pump up alternative energies? Stop fulfilling car loans. Or vice versa, you can't buy solar panels on your credit card etc. In reality no bank could afford to lose that business right now, but if they had a monopoly they could.

They must figure the good PR is worth losing those gun sales.

 

[Silurian]

Some investors will not invest in what they regard as unethical companies.
Some customers also will not buy from those companies.

If citibank thinks it will make more money by taking this stance why shouldn't they.
They are not discriminating against a minority and there are plenty other banks.

 

[Synobun]

How does this infringe on someone's constitutional rights? The 2nd Amendment doesn't say "sell guns to 18 year olds".

 

[Lexicus]

If market forces foreclose upon the exercise of rights within the commercial sphere, we progress towards a society where assurance of those rights is worthless lip service.

Next they'll be engaging in clear tyranny like refusing to sell guns to people who don't have enough money to buy one. For the record I sure hope we're moving toward a society where the "assurance" of gun rights is "worthless lip service".

Like hate oil industry and want to pump up alternative energies? Stop fulfilling car loans.

You say this like it would be a bad thing

 

[BvBPL]

Next they'll be engaging in clear tyranny like refusing to sell guns to people who don't have enough money to buy one. For the record I sure hope we're moving toward a society where the "assurance" of gun rights is "worthless lip service".

Is how we get there relevant? There's means by which the status of legal rights can change. The whims of a bank aren't one of them.

 

[Lexicus]

Is how we get there relevant?

I would prefer an executive order sending out the black helicopters to take all the guns, but will accept banks dropping gun sellers who make unrestricted sales.

There's means by which the status of legal rights can change. The whims of a bank aren't one of them.

You haven't shown the bank's decision is affecting the status of anyone's legal rights.

 

[stinkubus]

People refusing to do business with gun sellers does not infringe on your right to own a gun.

Also, this is the second RD thread started by the OP which has an incredibly misleading title. I thought RD threads were intended to foster a higher level of discussion. How can we do that if the title is a straight up lie?

 

[BvBPL]

It has the potential to interfere with the exercise of the right. A right that exists in theory but cannot be used isn’t much of one. There are processes by which rights may be altered, but the actions of the commercial sphere are not one of those. Where businesses can dictate rights there the rule of law has been abandoned in favor of rule by corporation.

The solution is actual legislation made by lawmakers who are driven by the will of the people, not some bank deciding what’s right and what’s wrong.

 

[Synobun]

Again, how is this infringing on someone's constitutional rights?

 

[dutchfire]

It has the potential to interfere with the exercise of the right. A right that exists in theory but cannot be used isn’t much of one. There are processes by which rights may be altered, but the actions of the commercial sphere are not one of those. Where businesses can dictate rights there the rule of law has been abandoned in favor of rule by corporation.

The solution is actual legislation made by lawmakers who are driven by the will of the people, not some bank deciding what’s right and what’s wrong.

Lawyers can refuse to represent you, newspapers can refuse to publish your articles, doctors/hospitals can refuse to perform abortions.
Banks can refuse to facilitate gun sales.

 

[civvver]

Next they'll be engaging in clear tyranny like refusing to sell guns to people who don't have enough money to buy one. For the record I sure hope we're moving toward a society where the "assurance" of gun rights is "worthless lip service".



You say this like it would be a bad thing

Use a different example then, you snipe every single quote. In the very next line I said or vice versa, a bank bans buying solar panels.

So it's fine to live by the whims of corporations as long as they're in line with your whims. Sounds awesome.

 

[Lexicus]

It has the potential to interfere with the exercise of the right. A right that exists in theory but cannot be used isn’t much of one. There are processes by which rights may be altered, but the actions of the commercial sphere are not one of those. Where businesses can dictate rights there the rule of law has been abandoned in favor of rule by corporation.

The solution is actual legislation made by lawmakers who are driven by the will of the people, not some bank deciding what’s right and what’s wrong.

So to prevent this you would support legally mandating banks to do business with all sellers of firearms or something? I'm just curious as to what your proposed remedy for this pressing Constitutional issue is.

you snipe every single quote.

Yeah it's a good way of cutting out extraneous stuff and maintaining my laser-like focus.

So it's fine to live by the whims of corporations as long as they're in line with your whims. Sounds awesome.

Dude, I'm a socialist, I don't want to live by the whims of corporations, unless those corporations are democratically-managed and accountable to the community

 

[BvBPL]

So to prevent this you would support legally mandating banks to do business with all sellers of firearms or something? I'm just curious as to what your proposed remedy for this pressing Constitutional issue is.

The solution is for lawmakers to act like lawmakers and for the citizenry to demand its lawmakers act in the interest of the common good. Businesses like Citibank and Wal*Mart are not obligated to the common good in the same way they are to the bottom line. If and when it becomes profitable to reverse their stance on age restrictions of gun sales they may, and arguably must, do so. Change of this kind dictated by business without the force of law may only be ephemeral, to burn away like the morning dew if and when the eyes of the nation turn away.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

As expected, this thread title is nothing but click bait bullfeathers. The constitution says NOT ONE WORD about governing the relationship between a bank and their customers. To claim that a bank is violating constitutional rights is to display TOTAL ignorance of the material.

 

[Lexicus]

Businesses like Citibank and Wal*Mart are not obligated to the common good in the same way they are to the bottom line.

Shouldn't they be though?

Change of this kind dictated by business without the force of law may only be ephemeral, to burn away like the morning dew if and when the eyes of the nation turn away.

If this is your real concern it seems like you should have worded the OP and the thread title differently.

 

[Silurian]

Businesses like Citibank and Wal*Mart are not obligated to the common good in the same way they are to the bottom line. If and when it becomes profitable to reverse their stance on age restrictions of gun sales they may, and arguably must, do so.

So you agree that Citibank and Wal*Mart do not think it is profitable to sell guns to people under 21 and hope that it will become profitable again so they will resume sales and banking services.

If business is starting to view an activity as unprofitable then you should be asking the government to compensate them or set up a government run business to carry out these unprofitable operations.

 

[Berzerker]

Can Citibank require bakers to serve gay weddings....or....can Citibank require bakers to not serve gay weddings?