Georgia Credit Union Bars Customers From Purchasing Guns With Their Own Money
- Thread starter AR10ShooterinNC
- Start date
- Replies 59
- Views 1,613
He has his box, you have your bucket...some things just be what they be.
From the banking side, I do see this as a lot of hype to get people fired up.
To be clear, I think we should be able to buy fully automatic machine guns from vending machines using our debit cards and then sell them to each other using PayPal all day. But this kind of "legalese" is pretty much par for the course for P2P business. And as mentioned above, is pretty much mainly a CYA type of thing for the bank/institution. Again, doesnt mean I agree with it, or like it, but it isnt unique and it aint the first.
Why are you arguing when you agree with me?!"Push back," "Paying attention," "Start up," "Market share" is exactly what I'm talking about.
Poor reading comprehension?
Sick brain?
Medication?
Inability to breath causing brain fog?
14 hour work day?
I like to argue?
Sometimes being a jerk at works follows me home?
I need a new arch nemesis and you are it?
Pick one, I'll go with it.
So we should just give in to rule by experts, even if the experts might have the credentials but are still idiots? What gripes me is making legal things against the TOS just "to protect mah interests!" From what? The legal ramification of a legal trasaction? Everyone does it so it's OK? Stupid boilerplate shouldn't be addressed? I'm to the point of not buying into that either. One of the reasons I keep my exposure on PayPal pretty limited. Never know when they might want to ding me for selling 2 pieces of leather in the shape of a gun. If it wasn't for non Etsy sales I'd get out of there altogether. But thanks to that rule by experts, where would I go?
fishgutzy
Senior Member
Note that the same paragraph also claims they can deny purchases of tobacco and prescription drugs.
The CU response was that it only applied to person to person sales. Yet such sales never have codes or descriptions of what was purchased.
If they are saying they don't enforce their rules, then the rule exists for virtue signaling, sort of like Costco supposedly banning guns in the member agreement but never having GFZ signs in the stores.
The CU response was that it only applied to person to person sales. Yet such sales never have codes or descriptions of what was purchased.
If they are saying they don't enforce their rules, then the rule exists for virtue signaling, sort of like Costco supposedly banning guns in the member agreement but never having GFZ signs in the stores.
As they are providing services to the public they are obligated to abide by certain non discrimination policies and this certainly is discrimination. As for competing that's all nice to talk about but a but like the Twitter argument - nobody can open up a real alternative to Twitter at this point, it's just not going to happen.
While the others are far more practical, this is the one I'd pick. Should I go with "Bwa-ha-ha!" or "Nyah-ha-ha!" ?
Git better quick.
Again, my point is that this particular CU isn't that "they." Any individual financing entity - especially a Credit Union - should be able to have rules that support and further the interests of the group said CU was designed to serve, whether you or I or anyone else agrees with their philosophy.*
Reason: A free people, a free market, anyone can participate.
Also again, I an completely against ALL economic transactions being FORCED through a monitor that tracks and can shut down commerce based on its philosophy.
Reason: Some people do as they wish, controlled market, some can do anything while others are restricted in what they can do with their own money.
________________________________________________
*That is my traditional view. Gotta admit, as corporate philosophies increasingly tend toward the unethical, illegal, immoral, and insane, I am increasingly inclined to look for theories and methods that limit that and re-open the "free" part of free market economics.
I don't have an issue with you on "Nowhere did I say digital banking, megabanking, or only-one-way/place-to-access-banking-transactions is good". Certainly I don't think you said anything of the sort.
My point is that this isn't something that can be solved in the long term simply by people who don't like it taking their business elsewhere because this issue is bigger than GACU.
The ONLY way any financial institution can realistically restrict how people spend THEIR OWN money is through electronic transaction means. And the reason why I went down the path that I did is because electronic transactions aren't just "the wave of the future", they're here now...and moving steadily towards an all-digital, cashless future. This is driven economically and politically.
Taking one's business somewhere else is a temporary solution at best, and only on the individual consumer level at that. Now, "temporary" is a subjective thing. It may be a year, a decade, or even a lifetime. But this IS coming down the pike, whether us as individuals (or even large groups) like it or not.
The ONLY way to stem this is for people to enact legislation to protect themselves from these issues on the long-term basis...and legislation with actual teeth and duration.
Financial institutions look long term. They will bray about the benefit of electronic transactions and cashless economics all day long, preying on the general public's love of convenience, easy access, and desire to spend money as effortlessly at possible. They will NOT, however, say a d*mn thing about all the OTHER stuff that CAN (and WILL) be done as a side effect, both privately and by the government, and will not willingly enact ANY protections/prohibitions which have the potential to limit their respective powers and abilities.
The GACU may, in the short term, be affected by consumers who take their business elsewhere. MAY. But the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of their customer base is NOT composed of people who give a rat's keister about this because either this doesn't affect them, they themselves are against anything having to do with people having the ability to purchase/own firearms, or they simply cannot/will not look past the end of their noses on what this means down the road with respect to accessing/spending their own money as they see fit.
YES...take your business elsewhere, of you're a GACU member and are at odds with this. Protect yourself fiscally and make your protests known, by all means. But it can't stop there...petitioning your government representatives to enact legislation which blocks financial institutions AND THE GOVERNMENT from taking part in restricting a person's access to their own money, and how they spend it.
OH...and keep in mind that a couple years ago there was a push to create a merchant code EXPRESSLY FOR firearms and firearms related equipment.
This would have allowed financial institutions to instantly flag any electronic transaction involving such as potentially being from a list of their "prohibited" transactions IAW their ToS. They could then deny the transaction and levy any fines covered under their ToS.
This would have allowed financial institutions to instantly flag any electronic transaction involving such as potentially being from a list of their "prohibited" transactions IAW their ToS. They could then deny the transaction and levy any fines covered under their ToS.
georgel
Behind Every Blade of Grass
Charter Member
Benefactor
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
I was surprised, when the marijuana industry took off and they couldn't financial institutions to work with them, that someone didn't step up to take their business along with the other "shunned" businesses. I mean it's millions if not billions of dollars.
But isn't that part of what the whole blockchain/bitcoin thing is about, decentralized "banking"? I want to believe in it, but lots of questions.
But isn't that part of what the whole blockchain/bitcoin thing is about, decentralized "banking"? I want to believe in it, but lots of questions.
georgel
Behind Every Blade of Grass
Charter Member
Benefactor
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
I was just pondering this a bit more and thought, we need a peoples bank. One where it's members decide what it should do. Then I realized that's what a credit union is supposed to be.
Last edited:
Even if such a bank existed, you'd still need to use a payment processing service. Visa/Mastercard/etc - which have their own ToS.
Then you'd also need a way to do P2P electronic transfers, which would also require a 3rd party service.
I had a very negative experience with SECU a couple years ago.
I won a 1919 belt loading machine in a Rock Island Auction Company auction. I decided to do a wire transfer for payment. I had always sent cashiers checks in previous instances, but had recently had a post office screw up that took two weeks to get one delivered (after paying for 2 day delivery).
So I stop by, fill out the form, and assume the money is on the way. Just before 5 o’clock I get a voice mail from the guy at the bank who did the paperwork stating that more information is needed from me before the money can be sent.
I stop by the next morning to see what‘s up and the first question out of this guys mouth is asking me “what kind of gun I bought?”. I ask why they think I bought a gun and why does it matter what I bought. He says “the company you are sending money to sells guns”. So apparently he took it upon himself to look up Rock Island Auction Company and get into my business. I inform him that they sell many things, not just guns.
Then this clown says in order to wire the money, I must provide an invoice to him showing what I purchased because he says “we (secu) work with ATF to help combat illegal gun sales”.
Needless to say we were done at that point. Done with him and done with secu.
fieldgrade
waiting...
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
While I don’t like the sound of that either, I wonder what a large mainstream private financial institution might have done differently. I mean, I don’t know.
About seven years ago my wife and I were in downsizing mode with the kids out of the house, so we sold our home, and moved into a rental while our next house was under construction. We had parked the money from the home sale, and some other cash, in a local bank that we had not done business with otherwise.
When it came time to close on the new home we both went to that bank to withdraw the funds and close the account. The young banker was very courteous, but very inquisitive about what we were going to do with that money. I mean beyond just the usual that I would have otherwise expected. I didn’t much care for the inquisition, and pushed back till he explained that .gov had something to do with his line of questioning. He was more specific about it, I just don’t recall exactly what he said. Money laundering I think.
Buying a primary local residence as we were is fairly innocuous, but I didn’t feel compelled to tell him what we were doing with the money until I figured it wasn’t worth haggling over. I just wanted the money and to get out.
Last edited:
It seems clear we agree on the desired end result, a free market. The difference lies in the method/path to (try and) achieve that.
At this point, I have ZERO faith in "legislation" at all, let alone any with "teeth and duration." (Well, except that which favors and furthers the downfall and eradication of the very notion of a free market.) Not even gonna mention equal treatment under the law.
Nor am I an advocate of "Tear Down and Destroy!" Not that I'd be too terribly upset if corrupt systems implode.
I'm simply saying that if the current system has devolved to the point where it not only does not facilitates one's participation in a free market economy, but actually impedes it, then stop using that system. And that necessitates doing something else.
Yes, yes, I know, that's "unrealistic," and "no-one can reasonably do that in the modern world" [eyeroll, dismisses entire concept out of hand].
But it's a goal to strive for: make their system of control of you irrelevent.
"But they'll never let you do that!" you say? They're (setting up the system to) not letting us do that anyway. Might as well find work-arounds until someone forces the issue.
Did you immediately pull everything out of your accounts and close them? In front of all the other customers?
PLEASE say you did this!
I pulled all my money out of one of my banks years ago and closed the account, though it wasn't through any fault of the bank's. I was going through a separation/divorce from my ex and she had done some very shady things. I went to the bank, told the teller exactly what I wanted to do and why.
My teller got all indignant ('cause obviously, I was trying to screw my wife over or something was the vibe I was getting). Fortunately for her, the teller next to her checked her attitude and said "Just close out the account. This kind of stuff happens a lot and he's just trying to protect himself."
There was a 30 day delay in actually closing the account, but that was administrative to be sure any uncleared checks at that point would be processed. But there was no money in that account when I was done: It was clear at that time that the actual balance in that account was $0 and no legitimate checks were out there at that point and any which came up after that date would NOT be legitimate.
30 days later, it was officially closed.
I have several banking institutions for a variety of reasons. I have absolutely no hesitation in shutting down any for any tomfoolery...like I did with a credit card company that decided out of the blue they were going to increase my interest rates, despite my excellent credit/payment history with them for several years. They were the first credit card company that gave me a credit card after I had gone through a bankruptcy with my ex-wife. I appreciated them for that...but to treat me like that when I had a perfect record of paying my bills on time, every time, from day one? Sorry...I gots other credit cards which treat me better.
To be fair, sometimes it IS because of government regulations. When this happens, you've got to know where to direct your ire because the banking institutions have their hands bound over it.
For instance, a Currency Transaction Report is required by law to be filled out by any financial institution whenever a customer attempts a currency transaction of more than $10,000. Yes, it's for money laundering purposes. If you deposit large somes of money which meet this requirement, they fill out a form for it. If withdraw or transfer monies of those amounts...they fill out a form for it.
They can also file that form for smaller amounts if it appears it's being done to deliberately avoid the $10,000 threshold.
Several years ago I got a funds transfer from my savings account to my checking account because I had exceeded the government regulation on mow many monthly withdrawals I could make from my savings account. This was "Regulation D", which fortunately has been gotten rid of in 2020. (Banks, however, may still have a monthly withdrawal limit of their own.)
However, this didn't mean that limit at that time was a hard and fast limit. The first time it happened to me, I thought "WTF? I've got plenty of money in my savings account, why can't I transfer anything to my checking account?" So I called NFCU and asked. The lady looked at my account and noted the number of prior transfers from savings I had and explained to me what happened and why. It was no problem because all they had to do at NFCU was simply authorize the extra transfer from my savings account.
So my ire over this was not with the credit union, but the feds.
The fiscal reason why this limit was in place was to facilitate a more stable level of currency in the banking institutions. It originated in the 1930s during the Great Depression for EXACTLY this reason, in order to maintain a minimum amount of reserves to meet immediate withdrawals against accounts. It was amended in 2009 to allow greater freedom for the depositor. This had to do with the financial debacle we went through in '07 and '08 and the Federal Reserve went with an "ample reserves" philosophy. In March of 2020 (that date sound familiar?) it changed again and the reserve requirement was reduced to zero. (Presumably, there's another system in place that governs bank liquidity called the "Basel III" Accord.)
georgel
Behind Every Blade of Grass
Charter Member
Benefactor
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
Feds asked financial institutions to flag Bible purchases, terms like 'MAGA,' 'TRUMP' to identify 'Extremists': Report | Blaze Media
A shocking report from Rep. Jim Jordan, chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, indicates that federal law enforcement agencies wanted financial institutions to identify potential extremists by flagging otherwise benign...
www.theblaze.com