Credit Card Processing Company Rejects Firearms Industry
 

No more Citibank for me.

-S



CREDIT CARD PROCESSING COMPANY REJECTS FIREARMS INDUSTRY

REFUSES TO PROCESS TRANSACTIONS . . . Citi Merchant Services and First Data Corp. are refusing to process any credit card transactions between federally licensed firearms retailers, distributors and manufacturers -- a move which will severely limit available inventory of firearms and ammunition to military, law enforcement and law-abiding Americans.

The first company to be affected by this decision appears to be firearms distributor CDNN Sports Inc.

"We were contacted recently by First Data/Citi Merchant Services by a June Rivera-Mantilla stating that we were terminated and funds were being seized for selling firearms in a non-face-to-face transaction," said Charlie Crawford, president of CDNN Sports Inc. "Although perfectly legal, we were also informed that no transactions would be processed in the future, even for non-firearms. I find this very frightening."

To voice your concern to Citi Merchant Services and First Data Corp., please contact June Rivera-Mantilla at 631-683-7734 or her supervisor Robert Tenenbaum at 631-683-6570.

To change to an NSSF-affiliated credit card processing program, contact Payment Alliance International at 1-866-371-2273 (ext. 1131).

Selling firearms in face-to-face-deals only sounds like a rational, reasonable and responsible way to do the deal. Firearms should not be object of postal orders - I think the reasons are very obvious.

If I'm reading it right, the credit card processing company is deciding what its customers should be allowed to use their money for? Also what do they mean by "funds were being seized" ?

Agreed. The way the lawyers work these day...I can see Citibank in court because the processed a firearm that was used in a crime. :roll: Welcome to today's society.

Skybird, here in the U.S. all firearm transactions must be done through an FFL dealer [as per the GCA of 1968/amended with the FOPA act of 1986]. If I ordered a firearm from Japan, it would have to be imported via an FFL dealer for the final part of the transaction. At this point and time I would be subjected to a background check through the National Instant Check System (NICS) [instituted in 1996] to verifiy that I'm not prohibited by law or court conviction/indictment from owning or possessing a firearm.

So this whole move by sitigroup to stop transactions because it isn't being done face-to-face is http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k8...Smilies/bs.gif

If citigroup doesn't want to support my rights then I don't need to support their business.

It's a pc move to gather clients.

This man gets a cookie - he knows the laws.

All Firearm transactions in the US cannot cross state line without going to a government approved FFL (Federal Fireams Licensed Dealer). Citibank is just using some lame excuse here.

-S

Well SUBMAN1
 

The Supreme Court has the issue of the right to arms before it now - something the Powers That Be have avoided for decades. Its here babe! Show down. Something tells me the Establishment has at least five high cards in its hand wearing 5 black robes. As Thomas Jefferson complained back in the early 19th century to a friend in a letter, the time for a new 2nd revolution was ripe and pass due, because the Supreme Court had become a power bigger than the Constituion. Well they fought that war later, 1860s and lost. Supreme court won, Yankee bankers won. My own grandfathers in the Union Army won, but in reality maybe they lost....the Constitution.

Anyway the chips are down for us now. Right to arms or no? What I'd like to see is how those justices will deal with the word: "ARMS" because back in the late 1700s and early 1800s it simply meant: Weapons of War. Not muskets. And back in those days well ordered militias did have cannons, gernades and mortars. An in the Webster's 1825 dictionary ARMS was defined as just that, along with swords, muskets and so on.

Well, good thing those guys in the black robes these days are a bit conservative (the majority vote) this time around.

-S

Well, it is easy to betray over your identity and age via mail - than if standing vis-a-vis to somebody. That's what I mean. Little boy "leasess" the identity of his father, and there he goes and is being given a new toy. Couldn't happen if daddy has to show up in a store.

Problem is, Daddy has to show up in person to the FFL, so no, it couldn't happen.

And how did little boy get all that cash for a gun anyway?

-S

By using his daddy's credit card.

Doubt it.

Still doesn't change the fact that Daddy has to be the one to physically pick it up, prove his identity, and most states have a 2 week waiting period for which then he has to go back and phyically get the gun. This is for a handgun typically (They call it a cool off period). No waiting on rifles though, but since a rifle is never used in a crime, its not a big deal.

-S

Why do you assume the Supreme Court will do anything other than what it has consistently done for the last 50 years? They will always enhance government and corporate power and limit or circumscribe individual rights and freedoms.