Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: Bank of the West federally owned?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Fort Collins, CO
    Posts
    7

    Bank of the West federally owned?

    I have been OCing into Bank of the West for about a year now. I have gone to both branches in Ft Collins about twice a month each. I have never even had so much as a second look from any of the employees, until today. While I was in the middle of making a deposit with one of the tellers, the banker who's desk is closest to the door came up to me and rather harshly informed me that it is a federal crime to carry a firearm into any federally owned building. I mentioned that it was not posted at the entrance and and she seemed to not care about the state law that requires this. I also said that I was unaware that Bank of the West is federally owned and she informed me that all banks are federally owned and that they fall under the same law as the federal court houses. I'm pretty sure that she is wrong but I was wondering if anyone else had some more info to shed some light on the subject. I don't want anyone looking after my money if they are unable to keep it safe, or if they flat out lie to me.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Phoenix David's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Glendale, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    629
    Don't know if she flat out lied or is just stupid but banks are not federally owned, the are federally insured, and some of the less knowledgeable think that is the same thing.
    Freedom is a bit like sex, when your getting it you take it for granted, when you're not you want it bad, other people get mad at you for having it and others want to take it away from you so only they have it.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Thornton, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    136
    Quote Originally Posted by gutshot View Post
    ask her if she gets a us government pay check.
    lol.

  4. #4
    Regular Member zoom6zoom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Dale City, VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,694
    just because the government bailed their ass out doesn't make them government owned. At least not yet.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Yooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houghton County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    808
    The only "banks" that are federally owned are the branches of the Federal Reserve. A bank being federally insured (FDIC) makes it no more federal than someone having flood insurance administered by the National Flood Insurance Program

  6. #6
    Regular Member PikesPeakMtnMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    426
    As others have said, federally insured isn't even close to being federally owned. However you mentioned something about a state law requiring "no guns" signs....there is no law, private property can ban or allow as they see fit...the only law along those lines is for city-owned property and they must post all entrances against open carry if they have a law (CC cannot be prohibited, though).

    Also, welcome to OCDO.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Thornton, Co, ,
    Posts
    9
    I would call and talk to the branch manager and advise him his employee does not know her **** and she needs to be re-trained..do this nicely of course as you get more honey by being sweet.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Fort Collins, CO
    Posts
    7

    Smile I'll call them, thanks

    Thanks for all the replies. I do plan to contact the bank and discuss this situation with them. As I said before, I definitely have less faith in the bank now and I wish to find out exactly what the corporate policy is. Thanks for the correction on the posting "no open carry allowed" thing. I thought that applied to private businesses as well.

  9. #9
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Swanzey,NH, ,
    Posts
    218
    Quote Originally Posted by Yooper View Post
    The only "banks" that are federally owned are the branches of the Federal Reserve. A bank being federally insured (FDIC) makes it no more federal than someone having flood insurance administered by the National Flood Insurance Program
    With all due respect. I believe that if you do your homework you find that the Federal Reserve Bank are not ferderally owned. You will find that the Federal Reserve is a PRIVATE BANKING SYSTEM. Yet they control the governments money, go figure.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Yooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houghton County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Rattrapper View Post
    With all due respect. I believe that if you do your homework you find that the Federal Reserve Bank are not ferderally owned. You will find that the Federal Reserve is a PRIVATE BANKING SYSTEM. Yet they control the governments money, go figure.
    You are correct, it is a private banking system, but most federal laws apply to it.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,250
    Bank of the West is not owned by our federal government. I concur with the rest of the group.

    Why is it she felt she could go ahead and inform you? If it was truly illegal- shouldn't she have "done the right thing" and just called you in?

    Sounds like she knew she couldn't have you arrested- but at the same time- didn't want you carrying a firearm inside.

    Standard anti tactics, isn't it?

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,250
    Quote Originally Posted by Yooper View Post
    You are correct, it is a private banking system, but most federal laws apply to it.
    To break it down in the most simplest terms.

    The Federal Reserve actually PRINTS the dollars- then "rents" them to our government with interest.

    Our government has had and does have the ability to Print currency- debt free. Nobody needs to print it for us.

    Will we ever print our own money again? The only debtless dollars currently being produced are coins. They are worth what they cost to make. No interest on the coins- thus a truly debt free currency. We won't massive produce those- although we tried to distribute the debtless gold dollar coins recently which failed to take hold.
    Last edited by cscitney87; 08-27-2010 at 10:52 PM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Yooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houghton County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by cscitney87 View Post
    To break it down in the most simplest terms.

    The Federal Reserve actually PRINTS the dollars- then "rents" them to our government with interest.

    Our government has had and does have the ability to Print currency- debt free. Nobody needs to print it for us.

    Will we ever print our own money again? The only debtless dollars currently being produced are coins. They are worth what they cost to make. No interest on the coins- thus a truly debt free currency. We won't massive produce those- although we tried to distribute the debtless gold dollar coins recently which failed to take hold.
    Think of what could happen if the Congress took back the power it unconstitutionally gave to the federal reserve. The U.S. taxpayer is paying interest to the Federal Reserve, in order for them to print our money, and let us use it. The amount of money we owe the Federal Reserve in interest is staggering. Rep Ron Paul has determined that by eliminating the Federal Reserve, and giving that power back to Congress, that the government would then be able to eliminate the federal personal income tax for ALL citizens, and still have a similar amount of money to spend on government programs. In other words, the combined personal income tax for every tax paying citizen is equal to, or less than just the interest we pay to the Federal Reserve.

  14. #14
    Lone Star Veteran Ian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    712
    Quote Originally Posted by Yooper View Post
    Think of what could happen if the Congress took back the power it unconstitutionally gave to the federal reserve. The U.S. taxpayer is paying interest to the Federal Reserve, in order for them to print our money, and let us use it. The amount of money we owe the Federal Reserve in interest is staggering. Rep Ron Paul has determined that by eliminating the Federal Reserve, and giving that power back to Congress, that the government would then be able to eliminate the federal personal income tax for ALL citizens, and still have a similar amount of money to spend on government programs. In other words, the combined personal income tax for every tax paying citizen is equal to, or less than just the interest we pay to the Federal Reserve.
    Wow! Now I gotta say I like this idea a lot!

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    There is NO Federal or Colorado State Law governing Firearms in Banks.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Castle Rock, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    392
    I concur with everyone above. Bank of the West is surely a member bank of the SanFran Federal Reserve, and just like the Fed it is privately owned.

    As far as their policy, don't trust anything that isn't in writing. If they tell you that OC is against their policy, make them provide it to you in writing. They'll probably do to you what 1st Bank did to me, which is try to imply that they have a policy against OC ("we have a policy of asking that you that you not OC because it makes everyone uncomfortable") but won't actually state that it is indeed their corporate policy because they don't want the liability.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by KD0EGE View Post
    I have been OCing into Bank of the West for about a year now. I have gone to both branches in Ft Collins about twice a month each. I have never even had so much as a second look from any of the employees, until today. While I was in the middle of making a deposit with one of the tellers, the banker who's desk is closest to the door came up to me and rather harshly informed me that it is a federal crime to carry a firearm into any federally owned building. I mentioned that it was not posted at the entrance and and she seemed to not care about the state law that requires this. I also said that I was unaware that Bank of the West is federally owned and she informed me that all banks are federally owned and that they fall under the same law as the federal court houses. I'm pretty sure that she is wrong but I was wondering if anyone else had some more info to shed some light on the subject. I don't want anyone looking after my money if they are unable to keep it safe, or if they flat out lie to me.
    She's full of crap. Banks are private entities.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    34

    Congress controlling monetary policy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Yooper View Post
    Think of what could happen if the Congress took back the power it unconstitutionally gave to the federal reserve. The U.S. taxpayer is paying interest to the Federal Reserve, in order for them to print our money, and let us use it. The amount of money we owe the Federal Reserve in interest is staggering. Rep Ron Paul has determined that by eliminating the Federal Reserve, and giving that power back to Congress, that the government would then be able to eliminate the federal personal income tax for ALL citizens, and still have a similar amount of money to spend on government programs. In other words, the combined personal income tax for every tax paying citizen is equal to, or less than just the interest we pay to the Federal Reserve.
    I must disagree that this is a good idea. You see, "Congress purposely established the fed as an independent agency of government. The objective was to protect the Fed from political pressures so that it could effectively control the money supply and maintain price stability. Political pressures on Congress and the executive branch may at times result in inflationary fiscal policies, including tax cuts and special-interest spending. if Congress and the executive branch also controlled the nation's monetary policy, citizens and lobbying groups undoubtedly would pressure elected officials to keep interest rates low even though at times high interest rates are necessary to reduce aggregate demand and thus control inflation. An independent monetary authority(the Fed) can take actions to increase interests rates when higher rates are needed to stem inflation. Studies show that countries that have independent control banks like the Fed have lower rates of inflation, on average, than countries that have little or no central bank independence." Can you imagine how bad off we would be economically if Congress had control of monetary policy. Those men and women can barely wipe their own butts, let alone try to even understand monetary policy and how it works.

    Source: My economics textbook

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,250

    Thumbs down

    ^^^ hahahahahahhahahaahahahahhah lmao hahhahahahahahah hahaha lololol hahaha!!!!!!!!!1111

  20. #20
    Regular Member entartet17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    206
    Quote Originally Posted by tpain View Post
    "The objective was to protect the Fed from political pressures so that it could effectively control the money supply and maintain price stability."
    Wow. Maintain price stability? Prices cannot be "stabilized" or "fixed" without disastrous results. The free market determines prices by coordinating supply, demand, marginal productivity, etc. Any interference in this process distorts prices and hurts the market.

    Quote Originally Posted by tpain View Post
    "Can you imagine how bad off we would be economically if Congress had control of monetary policy."
    The whole point is not that more centralized control by the federal government over monetary policy would be a good thing. ANY interference by the government in the market (including the unconstitutional and economically-inept Federal Reserve) is a bad thing. A free market demands true economic freedom. The Fed sets interest rates independent of the market. Artificially low interest rates set by the federal reserve cause recessions. It causes malinvestment due to the expansion of credit which improperly allocates resources. It's not that we should have Congress determining monetary policy, there should be no central banking in the first place.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Castle Rock, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by tpain View Post
    I must disagree that this is a good idea. You see, "Congress purposely established the fed as an independent agency of government. The objective was to protect the Fed from political pressures so that it could effectively control the money supply and maintain price stability. Political pressures on Congress and the executive branch may at times result in inflationary fiscal policies, including tax cuts and special-interest spending. if Congress and the executive branch also controlled the nation's monetary policy, citizens and lobbying groups undoubtedly would pressure elected officials to keep interest rates low even though at times high interest rates are necessary to reduce aggregate demand and thus control inflation. An independent monetary authority(the Fed) can take actions to increase interests rates when higher rates are needed to stem inflation. Studies show that countries that have independent control banks like the Fed have lower rates of inflation, on average, than countries that have little or no central bank independence." Can you imagine how bad off we would be economically if Congress had control of monetary policy. Those men and women can barely wipe their own butts, let alone try to even understand monetary policy and how it works.

    Source: My economics textbook
    I have no doubt that your economics text book pushes this idea that an "independent" central bank is necessary to maintain "full employment" and "price stability". Sadly, Keynesianism and central monetary planning are all they teach in schools these days. I'd recommend that you read up about the history of banking leading up to the creation of the Fed. Read about how it was sold to the American people. Read about who the actual designers of the system were during those meetings at Jekyll Island.

    Central banking is the worst possible example of central planning. Just like the Soviet commissars would sit around a table and decide how many cars or houses or loaves of bread the state industries would produce that year, the Federal Reserve Board and the FOMC try to decide what the price of money should be for the entire country. How can less than 20 people possibly have the same knowledge and expertise about the state of affairs as the collective knowledge of the entire populace, ie the market? They can't. And far from being an institution insulated from political influence, congress and the executive branch have enormous incentive to pressure the Fed to act in a given way because the Fed's actions are carried out in secret. At least if congress were doing it, we'd know what they were doing.

    However, the suggestion that congress take over the printing of money is almost as ridiculous as the Fed doing it. No one should print money. Wealth cannot be printed. Instead the price of money, ie interest rates, should be determined by the market, and the actual currency that we use should be fully backed by metals. To ensure that the money supply vs. metal supply is not manipulated by the treasury, congress should repeal legal tender laws that force us to use any specific currency.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,250
    While I appreciate your insight I do have to tell you that a "metals" or "commodity" based currency is just as easily manipulated. Remember when the United States called in all the Gold in the entire country? Literally. All of the Gold was called in. Literally.

    Remember in the middle of the century when the United States stopped putting real Silver in their Silver coins? Now it's a blend of cheaper metals.

    Understand that the currency doesn't have to be "backed" by anything except the full faith and credit of our great country and it's people. Our government simply needs to print their own currency (LIKE GREEN BACKS OR CONTINENTAL DOLLARS) of which it will spend throughout the country with it's projects and plans. This injects the new- DEBTLESS- money into our economy. The government will accept their NEW currency as payment on income taxes and all other debts. Problem solved... SO long as the government will take their new money for payment on taxes and debts- the people of the nation will so collect and spend the money.

    When somebody else prints your dollars (Central Bank- Fed Res); well the dollars are quite literally RENTED to the nation to use. The banks dollars may be called in or expanded in any fashion they decide- which causes a boom/bust economy coupled with the raising and lowering of interest rates (set by the very bank).

  23. #23
    Regular Member Yooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houghton County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by centsi View Post
    I have no doubt that your economics text book pushes this idea that an "independent" central bank is necessary to maintain "full employment" and "price stability". Sadly, Keynesianism and central monetary planning are all they teach in schools these days. I'd recommend that you read up about the history of banking leading up to the creation of the Fed. Read about how it was sold to the American people. Read about who the actual designers of the system were during those meetings at Jekyll Island.

    Central banking is the worst possible example of central planning. Just like the Soviet commissars would sit around a table and decide how many cars or houses or loaves of bread the state industries would produce that year, the Federal Reserve Board and the FOMC try to decide what the price of money should be for the entire country. How can less than 20 people possibly have the same knowledge and expertise about the state of affairs as the collective knowledge of the entire populace, ie the market? They can't. And far from being an institution insulated from political influence, congress and the executive branch have enormous incentive to pressure the Fed to act in a given way because the Fed's actions are carried out in secret. At least if congress were doing it, we'd know what they were doing.

    However, the suggestion that congress take over the printing of money is almost as ridiculous as the Fed doing it. No one should print money. Wealth cannot be printed. Instead the price of money, ie interest rates, should be determined by the market, and the actual currency that we use should be fully backed by metals. To ensure that the money supply vs. metal supply is not manipulated by the treasury, congress should repeal legal tender laws that force us to use any specific currency.
    The problem with repealing the legal tender laws is that we will end up with a thousand different types of money, and nobody will be able to figure out what is real, and what is fake. So I think, and I'd hate to say this, that congress could create a new agency (which should pass constitutional muster) that would print the money of the U.S., and destroy money that is no longer usable. Congress would have to set it's value (does 1oz of gold = $20, or $200, or $2,000?), and that value should not change. Also, a bi-metal standard (such as using silver and gold) leads to problems, because the values of such metals change independently of each other. Even though you may disagree with me, I think we are in agreement that the Fed, who's job it was to protect the value of the dollar, has failed miserably since their inception by losing 95% of it's value.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Yooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houghton County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by cscitney87 View Post
    While I appreciate your insight I do have to tell you that a "metals" or "commodity" based currency is just as easily manipulated. Remember when the United States called in all the Gold in the entire country? Literally. All of the Gold was called in. Literally.

    Remember in the middle of the century when the United States stopped putting real Silver in their Silver coins? Now it's a blend of cheaper metals.

    Understand that the currency doesn't have to be "backed" by anything except the full faith and credit of our great country and it's people. Our government simply needs to print their own currency (LIKE GREEN BACKS OR CONTINENTAL DOLLARS) of which it will spend throughout the country with it's projects and plans. This injects the new- DEBTLESS- money into our economy. The government will accept their NEW currency as payment on income taxes and all other debts. Problem solved... SO long as the government will take their new money for payment on taxes and debts- the people of the nation will so collect and spend the money.

    When somebody else prints your dollars (Central Bank- Fed Res); well the dollars are quite literally RENTED to the nation to use. The banks dollars may be called in or expanded in any fashion they decide- which causes a boom/bust economy coupled with the raising and lowering of interest rates (set by the very bank).
    You can not just print money. It SHOULD be backed by something. If the money is backed by something such as gold or silver, and it's value is not manipulated, you can't have hyper inflation. If your money isn't backed by anything, and the government keeps printing away, hyper inflation becomes a question of "when", not "if". If we could just print money, why doesn't the government just print all the money, so we don't have to work, or pay taxes? Why do we have a $13,000,000,000,000 debt? Why not just print the money and pay it off?

  25. #25
    Regular Member entartet17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    206
    Quote Originally Posted by cscitney87 View Post
    While I appreciate your insight I do have to tell you that a "metals" or "commodity" based currency is just as easily manipulated. Remember when the United States called in all the Gold in the entire country? Literally. All of the Gold was called in. Literally.
    Yes, the government illegally and unconstitutionally seized gold reserves. That's a lot more than simple manipulation. That being said, I agree with you that, as long as central banking exists, it does not matter if we have a gold standard (though it would certainly help) because it could be debased by the government (as it was in Early Modern England). What we need is a gold standard (or silver, but not both) and no central bank issuing fiat paper money.
    Last edited by entartet17; 08-31-2010 at 06:47 PM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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