Bank of America closes gun dealer's ten year account

[The Infidel]

Best recourse is to simply not bank with those creeps.

 

[g5000]

so a bank can discriminate against a customer's 2nd Amendment Rights....?

and Bank of America is Sharia compliant......?

but no Christian company can discriminate against a woman wanting contraceptives....?

A blogger on the partisan site American Thinker is using a nine month old article from The Daily Pisser as his source for this information.

This is a new one. You are thinking of the stunt they pulled last April.

This is not a new one. The OP quote is talking about the one from last April. The McMillan thing was last April.

In the other case discussed in the OP link, which is a new case, BofA did not close the gun dealer's account. The bank saw a surge in his pass-through and are doing due diligence to ensure he is not breaking the law or laundering money.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

And if they did it in states where sexuality is a protected class they'd be breaking the law.

Sorry but there are no laws making sellers of guns over the internet a protected class.


Are you going to keep whining?

Then the law is hampering the free market, you shouldn't bother bringing it up when it suits the need. Like in your retarded signature.

Please speak in complete sentences.

It's not speech, it's written word, thunder dolt.

 

[AmyNation]

"This customer's concerns have been resolved. Any spike in transaction volumes is routinely reviewed by the bank in order to protect our customers. This process is initiated regardless of the industry in which they do business. We regret any inconvenience this may have caused."

Gunmaker Accuses Bank Of America Of Freezing Its Accounts

 

[mjollnir]

it's not free when you whiny socialist bitches force companies to do your bidding....

if BofA chose not to bank for gays you would be out in full whining mode....

A. Sorry, little girl, not a socialist.
B. No one is forcing this company to do anything.
C. You hate the free market. Is that because you've been on welfare your entire life?

see above post retard...

I did see it.

That's how I know you have a pathological fear and hatred of the free market, Comrade Whiny Little Bitch.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

it's not free when you whiny socialist bitches force companies to do your bidding....

if BofA chose not to bank for gays you would be out in full whining mode....

And if they did it in states where sexuality is a protected class they'd be breaking the law.

Sorry but there are no laws making sellers of guns over the internet a protected class.


Are you going to keep whining?

i never said BofA couldn't choose to not bank for the gun dealer...(of course that was not mentioned when he opened the account and used it for 10 fucking years).........i was pointing out the fucking liberal HYPOCRISY......

What liberal hypocrisy? How the hell are gun dealers and gay people the same things?

 

[mjollnir]

Best recourse is to simply not bank with those creeps.

^^^ this.

Someone finally gets it.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Then the law is hampering the free market, you shouldn't bother bringing it up when it suits the need. Like in your retarded signature.

Please speak in complete sentences.

It's not speech, it's written word, thunder dolt.

Its not speech? Really? So written words aren't protected by the 1st amendment?

You're an idiot.

 

[g5000]

Best recourse is to simply not bank with those creeps.

Best recourse is not to drink the piss being poured by these idiots at American Thinker (ironic name, no?) and the Daily Pisser.

Their information is incorrect.

 

[tinydancer]

if BofA chose not to bank for gays you would be out in full whining mode....

Owning a big gun to compensate for your tiny dick is a CHOICE, asshole.

A man saved himself and his family from a rabid bobcat attack at his home in Mass the other day.

A choice at that moment between a big dick or a gun? I bet the man and his family are thrilled they had the gun.

 

[g5000]

Best recourse is to simply not bank with those creeps.

^^^ this.

Someone finally gets it.

No. You and he are drinking the piss. American Thinker and Daily Piss got their facts wrong, and you fell for it.

You are classic rubes.

 

[Politico]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/271573-bank-of-america-freezes-account-of-gun-maker.html

 

[boedicca]

Where does the 2nd amendment say anything about a right to bank at BankofAmerica? You people are seriously fucked in the head.

Uh. If somebody has lawful deposits in a bank, that bank doesn't have the right to suspend his account and deny access to his funds.

Banks aren't obligated to make all of your funds available at all times, I guess you've never read the fine print when opening a bank account.

I'm sure you would really enjoy being denied access to your deposits.

 

[g5000]

so a bank can discriminate against a customer's 2nd Amendment Rights....?

Where does the 2nd amendment say anything about a right to bank at BankofAmerica? You people are seriously fucked in the head.

Uh. If somebody has lawful deposits in a bank, that bank doesn't have the right to suspend his account and deny access to his funds.

"The deposits were on hold for further review."

That is the issue.

Actually, they are allowed to do that. If there is a surge in the amount of cash flowing through a bank account, they can be held accountable if it turns out he is laundering drug money or terrorist money.

You can thank law-and-order politicians for that requirement. Go Patriot Act! Go Homeland Security!

 

[mjollnir]

Best recourse is to simply not bank with those creeps.

^^^ this.

Someone finally gets it.

No. You and he are drinking the piss. American Thinker and Daily Piss got their facts wrong, and you fell for it.

You are classic rubes.

I understand that the facts were wrong.

My comments were more in regards to taking someone's business elsewhere if they don't like who they're doing business with.

 

[g5000]

The dumb shit is going to be shocked when the same thing happens to him at his next bank.

This has nothing to do with who he is doing business with. It has to do with the law.

 

[boedicca]

Where does the 2nd amendment say anything about a right to bank at BankofAmerica? You people are seriously fucked in the head.

Uh. If somebody has lawful deposits in a bank, that bank doesn't have the right to suspend his account and deny access to his funds.

"The deposits were on hold for further review."

That is the issue.

Actually, they are allowed to do that. If there is a surge in the amount of cash flowing through a bank account, they can be held accountable if it turns out he is laundering drug money or terrorist money.

You can thank law-and-order politicians for that requirement. Go Patriot Act! Go Homeland Security!

The gun seller was doing internet sales. Rather difficult to do on a Cash Basis, bub.

 

[boedicca]

The dumb shit is going to be shocked when the same thing happens to him at his next bank.

Just like you're going to be shocked when the Dems seize your IRA and 401K to bail out union pension funds. The banks will help them do that, too.

 

[tinydancer]

A blogger on the partisan site American Thinker is using a nine month old article from The Daily Pisser as his source for this information.

This is a new one. You are thinking of the stunt they pulled last April.

This is not a new one. The OP quote is talking about the one from last April. The McMillan thing was last April.

In the other case discussed in the OP link, which is a new case, BofA did not close the gun dealer's account. The bank saw a surge in his pass-through and are doing due diligence to ensure he is not breaking the law or laundering money.

We were on this last night in another thread. Last April they told that dealer they didn't want to deal with him.

Now this one takes place freezing these deposits. Truly hindering the company's cash flow. And BOA have now issued an apology.

What's the issue here? Both stories are true.

 

[g5000]

Uh. If somebody has lawful deposits in a bank, that bank doesn't have the right to suspend his account and deny access to his funds.

"The deposits were on hold for further review."

That is the issue.

Actually, they are allowed to do that. If there is a surge in the amount of cash flowing through a bank account, they can be held accountable if it turns out he is laundering drug money or terrorist money.

You can thank law-and-order politicians for that requirement. Go Patriot Act! Go Homeland Security!

The gun seller was doing internet sales. Rather difficult to do on a Cash Basis, bub.

Indeed it is. But this is about his deposits via his e-commerce account, no?

Yes.