• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

B of USSA at it again

papa bear

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
2,222
Location
mayberry, nc
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!
 

DrakeZ07

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
1,080
Location
Lexington, Ky
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.
 

papa bear

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
2,222
Location
mayberry, nc
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:

Gil223

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
1,392
Location
Weber County Utah
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".
:shocker:pax...
 

DrakeZ07

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
1,080
Location
Lexington, Ky
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

Gil223

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
1,392
Location
Weber County Utah
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...
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
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.
 

Gil223

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
1,392
Location
Weber County Utah
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. :rolleyes: Pax...
 

papa bear

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
2,222
Location
mayberry, nc
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
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
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.
 

papa bear

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
2,222
Location
mayberry, nc
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
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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. :rolleyes: 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.
 

papa bear

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
2,222
Location
mayberry, nc
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:

arentol

New member
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
383
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
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:

nonameisgood

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
1,008
Location
Big D
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.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.

...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.
 
Top