Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: B of USSA at it again

  1. #1
    Regular Member papa bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    mayberry, nc
    Posts
    2,258

    B of USSA at it again

    just got this in the VCDL alerts. i think it is a response by PVC. just another reason i don't bank at Bank of USSA



    I got the following email from Richard Hanes and I have personally called Gary Lewis, who owns Gary's Guns & Transfers, to confirm. And it is even worse than described in that email - Bank of America is now demanding that Gary AND his WIFE close out all their company AND personal loans, checking, and savings accounts and cease to be a customer of BOA! Gary's accounts and safety deposit box are all in excellent standing and have been for the last TWENTY YEARS.

    When Gary went to the bank to close out his safety deposit box, and, for the first time ever at that bank, there was an armed guard present.

    I have bought guns from Gary and he has always struck me as professional and ethical. This attack on him is uncalled for and we need to all walk away from Bank of North Korea, er, America.

    -

    Gary Lewis, owner of Gary's Guns & Transfers, is my neighbor and good friend. I helped him a lot when he was starting his business about 5 years ago after he purchased Jim Jarrett's inventory when NYC/Bloomberg forced Jim to shut down.

    I sent him an email about Bank of America shutting down Gun manufacturer's accounts some time ago.

    He just called me to tell me that BOA had just done the same to him, without cause or reason. They even locked up his safety deposit box and
    restricted his access, telling him he had to make an appointment to empty his safety deposit box and if he did not do so they would drill it and take
    the contents!
    Luke 22:36 ; 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    "guns are like a Parachute, if you don't have one when you need it, you will not need one again"
    - unknown

    i you call a CHP a CCW then you are really stupid. period.

  2. #2
    Regular Member DrakeZ07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Lexington, Ky
    Posts
    1,107
    I don't see what all the fuss is about, the bank, or company who owns it, has a right to deny service to anyone it wishes. Or is property rights, and the rights of businesses trumped by citizens, and mandated by the federal government to order private companies and corporations as to who they can and cannot deal businesses with? I understand the out-rage felt by their decision, but if we're to expect respect for our cause, and rights, then we must give respect to the rights and causes of others, business or citizen. Besides, I like BoA, I have a separate account solely to house my gun collection and private sells funds, and the staff and loans person knows well of it, but I've never been goaded into closing accounts.
    I'm a proud openly gay open carrier~
    Trained SKYWARN spotter, and veteran Storm Chaser.
    =^.^= ~<3~ =^.^=
    Beware the Pink Camo clad gay redneck.

  3. #3
    Regular Member papa bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    mayberry, nc
    Posts
    2,258
    if you don't own a gun you have a right, it is one thing to be an Anti-constitutional person, . if you own guns and you give money to and support to the Anti constitutionals, then you are a hypocrite.

    if you support the Brady bunch you have the right to speak. just be honest and tell people you are an anti constitutionalists
    Last edited by papa bear; 02-21-2013 at 11:49 PM.
    Luke 22:36 ; 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    "guns are like a Parachute, if you don't have one when you need it, you will not need one again"
    - unknown

    i you call a CHP a CCW then you are really stupid. period.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by DrakeZ07 View Post
    I don't see what all the fuss is about, the bank, or company who owns it, has a right to deny service to anyone it wishes. Or is property rights, and the rights of businesses trumped by citizens, and mandated by the federal government to order private companies and corporations as to who they can and cannot deal businesses with? I understand the out-rage felt by their decision, but if we're to expect respect for our cause, and rights, then we must give respect to the rights and causes of others, business or citizen. Besides, I like BoA, I have a separate account solely to house my gun collection and private sells funds, and the staff and loans person knows well of it, but I've never been goaded into closing accounts.
    I don't believe that any financial institution has the right to terminate the contractual relationship between themselves and their customers.
    They even locked up his safety deposit box and restricted his access, telling him he had to make an appointment to empty his safety deposit box and if he did not do so they would drill it and take the contents!
    BoA is unquestionably run by left-wing thugs! IANAL, but I don't believe that - so long as his box rental is current - they can legally do that. I don't know what they call such an action in the banking world, but in the legal world they call they willful and unlawful taking of the property of another person "theft".
    Pax...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  5. #5
    Regular Member DrakeZ07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Lexington, Ky
    Posts
    1,107
    Quote Originally Posted by papa bear View Post
    if you don't own a gun you have a right, it is one thing to be an Anti-constitutional person, . if you own guns and you give money to and support to the Anti constitutionals, then you are a hypocrite.

    if you support the Brady bunch you have the right to speak. just be honest and tell people you are an anti constitutionalists
    Am I an apart of the "Anti constitutionalists" crowd simply because I do business with an entity who conducts itself as it sees fit pertaining to its own business policies? Surely then, anyone who refuses to do business with an entity who poses 'no firearms' signs, are surely "Anti-Constitutional" because they won't support a group, or entity who uses their first amendment and property rights, to post such signs?

    Truly an odd connundrum, is it not? Pardon the expression, damned if you speak for them, damned your own principles if you don't.
    I'm a proud openly gay open carrier~
    Trained SKYWARN spotter, and veteran Storm Chaser.
    =^.^= ~<3~ =^.^=
    Beware the Pink Camo clad gay redneck.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Gil223 View Post
    I don't believe that any financial institution has the right to terminate the contractual relationship between themselves and their customers ...
    Of course they do, unless that action itself would breach the agreement. Even then, there is merely a consequence of being in breach. The contract can ALWAYS be terminated. Contracts are voluntary interactions between people and are grounded in Liberty. Once a contract can be enforced in perpetuity with no recourse by at least one of those parties, the party who cannot terminate the contract (even with some reasonable consequence) becomes a slave to the other party.

    Many forms of "slavery" were indeed contracts, entered into voluntarily, that did not have any way for one of the parties (the slave) to terminate that contract. If you truly believe in Liberty, you do not believe that contracts cannot be terminated (with possibly a reasonable consequence) by either party.

    I don't think that a bank should terminate a contract because the other party is in the firearm business. However, I believe that they should be able to do so. One consequence is that I will never do business with them.

    It's about Liberty. Not just ours. Theirs too.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Of course they do, unless that action itself would breach the agreement. Even then, there is merely a consequence of being in breach. The contract can ALWAYS be terminated. Contracts are voluntary interactions between people and are grounded in Liberty. Once a contract can be enforced in perpetuity with no recourse by at least one of those parties, the party who cannot terminate the contract (even with some reasonable consequence) becomes a slave to the other party.

    Many forms of "slavery" were indeed contracts, entered into voluntarily, that did not have any way for one of the parties (the slave) to terminate that contract. If you truly believe in Liberty, you do not believe that contracts cannot be terminated (with possibly a reasonable consequence) by either party.

    I don't think that a bank should terminate a contract because the other party is in the firearm business. However, I believe that they should be able to do so. One consequence is that I will never do business with them.

    It's about Liberty. Not just ours. Theirs too.
    People can sue for the most unreasonable things these days, and there's a lawyer somewhere who will sue on any grounds (Liebeck v McDonald's is a shining example) and be successful! It still sounds like a discriminatory business practice to me (I had personal account with BoA about 25 years ago - for about 3 months - and would never use or recommend them for anything again). Pax...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    If you don't believe that a business should be able to discriminate based on any grounds whatsoever, then you don't really believe in Liberty.

    Once again, your can't really fight for your Liberty. You can only fight for the Liberty of others.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    If you don't believe that a business should be able to discriminate based on any grounds whatsoever, then you don't really believe in Liberty.

    Once again, your can't really fight for your Liberty. You can only fight for the Liberty of others.
    Business is not a person. I know, I know, you and Romney don't share my view on that particular subject.

    Liberty is won collectively, not individually.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  10. #10
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    If you don't believe that a business should be able to discriminate based on any grounds whatsoever, then you don't really believe in Liberty.

    Once again, your can't really fight for your Liberty. You can only fight for the Liberty of others.
    That was settled during the Civil Rights struggle of the 50s and 60s. There are certain specific grounds upon which a business cannot discriminate, and if they cannot discriminate in one aspect why should they be permitted to discriminate in any other aspect without just cause? Banks keep the money of pimps, drug dealers, child molesters, organized crime members and other unsavory characters. Why should they be permitted to deny a legitimate businessman those same services without cause? They can't refuse a legitimate account from a known Democrat (assuming the terms "legitimate" and "Democrat" are not mutually exclusive). An account cannot be refused to a gay, black cross dresser, or even an illegal alien. BoA was the first bank to issue credit cards to illegal aliens, and bragged about it. Apparently their "business compass" has no true North on it. Pax...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  11. #11
    Regular Member papa bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    mayberry, nc
    Posts
    2,258
    Quote Originally Posted by DrakeZ07 View Post
    Am I an apart of the "Anti constitutionalists" crowd simply because I do business with an entity who conducts itself as it sees fit pertaining to its own business policies? Surely then, anyone who refuses to do business with an entity who poses 'no firearms' signs, are surely "Anti-Constitutional" because they won't support a group, or entity who uses their first amendment and property rights, to post such signs?

    Truly an odd connundrum, is it not? Pardon the expression, damned if you speak for them, damned your own principles if you don't.

    most definitely, yes. if you give your money and support to an anti-constitutional group then you are an anti self defense person
    Luke 22:36 ; 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    "guns are like a Parachute, if you don't have one when you need it, you will not need one again"
    - unknown

    i you call a CHP a CCW then you are really stupid. period.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    If you don't believe that a business should be able to discriminate based on any grounds whatsoever, then you don't really believe in Liberty.

    Once again, your can't really fight for your Liberty. You can only fight for the Liberty of others.
    Corporations should not have any rights.

    A business should have no rights.

    A business owner has rights.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  13. #13
    Regular Member papa bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    mayberry, nc
    Posts
    2,258
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Business is not a person. I know, I know, you and Romney don't share my view on that particular subject.

    Liberty is won collectively, not individually.
    Sorry BL, i call BS. liberty is individually. no collective can have liberty without taking it from another collective
    Luke 22:36 ; 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    "guns are like a Parachute, if you don't have one when you need it, you will not need one again"
    - unknown

    i you call a CHP a CCW then you are really stupid. period.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by papa bear View Post
    Sorry BL, i call BS. liberty is individually. no collective can have liberty without taking it from another collective
    Give this man some porridge. He has nailed it.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Gil223 View Post
    That was settled during the Civil Rights struggle of the 50s and 60s. There are certain specific grounds upon which a business cannot discriminate, and if they cannot discriminate in one aspect why should they be permitted to discriminate in any other aspect without just cause? Banks keep the money of pimps, drug dealers, child molesters, organized crime members and other unsavory characters. Why should they be permitted to deny a legitimate businessman those same services without cause? They can't refuse a legitimate account from a known Democrat (assuming the terms "legitimate" and "Democrat" are not mutually exclusive). An account cannot be refused to a gay, black cross dresser, or even an illegal alien. BoA was the first bank to issue credit cards to illegal aliens, and bragged about it. Apparently their "business compass" has no true North on it. Pax...
    That it was "settled" does not mean it is not anti-Liberty. People have a God-given (or natural, if you prefer) right of association. When the government makes laws regarding with whom you must associate, they have usurped the right.

    Banks should be permitted to deny anyone, whether you think they are "legitimate" or not. That is called Liberty.

    BTW, not to make this argument, but just to point out the inconsistency in your lines of thought: It is not "settled" that banks cannot discriminate against certain businesses based on the items the choose to trade.

    You don't like it. I get that. I don't like it. That doesn't mean that we may wield the government to chastise those who do things we don't like. We are no better than the antis when we try to use the government to force others to do things the way we think that they should.

    Again, when you fight for Liberty, it is not your Liberty you defend. It is the Liberty of others.

  16. #16
    Regular Member papa bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    mayberry, nc
    Posts
    2,258
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Corporations should not have any rights.

    A business should have no rights.

    A business owner has rights.
    might agree with you, but a corperation is people and people do have rights. you can not separate one from the other


    it is my contention that B of USSA does have the right to set their policy any way they want. BUT, i do think if you support them with your money or participation, then you are just as bad as they are. it would be the same if you are of a political party. you are guilty of everything they are
    Last edited by papa bear; 02-22-2013 at 09:14 PM.
    Luke 22:36 ; 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    "guns are like a Parachute, if you don't have one when you need it, you will not need one again"
    - unknown

    i you call a CHP a CCW then you are really stupid. period.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by DrakeZ07 View Post
    I don't see what all the fuss is about, the bank, or company who owns it, has a right to deny service to anyone it wishes. Or is property rights, and the rights of businesses trumped by citizens, and mandated by the federal government to order private companies and corporations as to who they can and cannot deal businesses with? I understand the out-rage felt by their decision, but if we're to expect respect for our cause, and rights, then we must give respect to the rights and causes of others, business or citizen. Besides, I like BoA, I have a separate account solely to house my gun collection and private sells funds, and the staff and loans person knows well of it, but I've never been goaded into closing accounts.
    Yes, BOA does have a right to deny service to anyone it wishes (as long as the reason isn't based on a protected class), and conversely, we all have the right to deny BOA one red cent of our money and to even organize formal protests against them for their decision.

    Nobody is (or at least nobody should be) saying that BOA has no right to do this. What is being said is that they ARE doing it, which is being said so gun owners can make an informed decision about whether or not to bank with BOA. If you don't care about this issue and want to keep working with them go for it. I believe fully in your right to make your own decision on this. But please don't trivialize other peoples feelings about this. It is a valid issue and spreading this information is a valid thing to do.
    Last edited by arentol; 02-23-2013 at 01:24 AM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Big D
    Posts
    1,059

    B of USSA at it again

    Technically, a corporation isn't a person which automatically gets rights. It is a contrivance of law that is intended to protect the people behind it from liability and taxation. It is a special case, and a bank is also granted special license. That said, these special organizations can be held to a different requirement from a sole proprietorship or other unincorporated business.

    In exchange for protection, they give up freedom from extra regulation. It's a fair trade.

  19. #19
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    That it was "settled" does not mean it is not anti-Liberty. People have a God-given (or natural, if you prefer) right of association. When the government makes laws regarding with whom you must associate, they have usurped the right.

    Banks should be permitted to deny anyone, whether you think they are "legitimate" or not. That is called Liberty.

    BTW, not to make this argument, but just to point out the inconsistency in your lines of thought: It is not "settled" that banks cannot discriminate against certain businesses based on the items the choose to trade.

    You don't like it. I get that. I don't like it. That doesn't mean that we may wield the government to chastise those who do things we don't like. We are no better than the antis when we try to use the government to force others to do things the way we think that they should.

    Again, when you fight for Liberty, it is not your Liberty you defend. It is the Liberty of others.
    +1 How very libertarian of you! Non political coercion.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by arentol View Post
    Yes, BOA does have a right to deny service to anyone it wishes (as long as the reason isn't based on a protected class)...
    Actually, they have the right to deny service even based on membership in a protected class. That that right has been infringed does not mean that it is not a right, just a right that is illegal to practice as the law is currently written. The law should be changed to comport with God-given (or, if you prefer, natural) rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    ...How very libertarian of you! ...
    If you think what I posted comes from libertarianism, I can assure you that it does not. It comes from being a Constitutionalist and a Federalist. Except for rights (such as the 2A) that the States did not explicitly ONLY tie the Federal government's hands regarding, I believe the individual States, within the limits of their constitutions and the Constitution, could allow such a tyranny of the majority. It is our responsibility to use our freedom to travel between States, to vote with our feet, to support States that respect rights, and to leave socialist States to their fates.

    The ultimate in Liberty is achieved when a system creates a marketplace of governments.

  21. #21
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    If you think what I posted comes from libertarianism, I can assure you that it does not. It comes from being a Constitutionalist and a Federalist. Except for rights (such as the 2A) that the States did not explicitly ONLY tie the Federal government's hands regarding, I believe the individual States, within the limits of their constitutions and the Constitution, could allow such a tyranny of the majority. It is our responsibility to use our freedom to travel between States, to vote with our feet, to support States that respect rights, and to leave socialist States to their fates.

    The ultimate in Liberty is achieved when a system creates a marketplace of governments.
    I was just teasing you a bit, .

    The statement you made though is pretty much the foundation of libertarian philosophy of non political coercion.

    And you are right by the constitution the states can be tyrannical, it is up to the people to keep their state free (homage to the second amendment), most states have constitutions supporting freedom and liberty and individualism too, my libertarian perspective is to get my state to at least follow their constitution, and to be as free as possible, wouldn't it be great if states competed for liberty? (I can dream can't I?)
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    B of USSA at it again

    Competing for the best system should create the best States, each a little bit different, which would be an admirable goal. A State with maximum Liberty might not be the best, at least not from every individual's point of view.

    However, this is not possible when the federal government oversteps its bounds and imposes a one-size-fits-all system on all the States.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Spfld, Mo.
    Posts
    430
    People that are up against this can actually do something about it.

    18 USC 241 makes it a crime for 2 or more people to act together and you can bet there are MULTIPLE people involved in the BOA issue. Let's see if 18 USC 242 applies as well.

    It's a damn FEDERAL FELONY and sadly, that means that the USAG has to file the charges. "Their" people are the ones behind the banking pressures and they're failing to tell the banks that if they take action they might not be protected legally. This is why the States need to enact laws that make it a State-level felony for such actions taken by a business, politician, or private individual.

    Just like the Governor of Texas said, take your business elsewhere because there are other banks willing to take your money.


    I have to ask, has he explored a breach of contract suit on this? I'm curious if it's even possible.
    Last edited by REALteach4u; 02-25-2013 at 08:32 PM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    89
    Bofa wouldn't let me purchase a gun today when I swiped my card... Had to use my AMEX ... Seemingly I have been using my Amex more as my bofa doesn't serve me much anymore

  25. #25
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by moriar View Post
    Bofa wouldn't let me purchase a gun today when I swiped my card... Had to use my AMEX ... Seemingly I have been using my Amex more as my bofa doesn't serve me much anymore
    Seems that BoA has taken over the role of parent now, inasmuch as they are restricting what you can buy with the card. If it were my card, I'd take it to the bank, walk into the managers office, tell him where to put the card, and to close my account. I have closed bank accounts before over much smaller issues. Pax...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •