Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Registration is currently closed. That means if you're not already registered, you can't comment. We will let you know if and when registration re-opens. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
By credit card processing, I assume this is not the bank but the actual company that records the transaction, right?
If so, this sounds like a contractual violation. Especially if no prior revision to the contract was communicated and agreed to by both parties. I smell a lawsuit, especially since the transaction is legal.
Andy in Agoura Hills on January 9, 2008 at 2:56 PM
Okay, I just read the letter from the processing company.
Two points:
1. The GCA of 1968 allows interstate sales of firearms between individual FFLs. So Rivera-Mantilla is wrong.
2. Who the hell is this company to enforce a law that is the responsiblity of law enforcement BATF, FBI, etc.???? Are they actually investigating this company’s business practices???
This sounds like, once again, a liberal gun-grab ploy.
Andy in Agoura Hills on January 9, 2008 at 3:07 PM
While the concept of such a restriction boils the blood and sends me through the roof, I’m a little leery of getting too excited about the actuality until we have more information. As many firearms as are sold through non-face-to-face transactions in this country, that only one company has come forward with the problem at this point makes we wonder if something else isn’t going on here.
deepdiver on January 9, 2008 at 3:13 PM
What’s in your wallet, indeed.
BillH on January 9, 2008 at 3:30 PM
While the concept of such a restriction boils the blood and sends me through the roof, I’m a little leery of getting too excited about the actuality until we have more information. As many firearms as are sold through non-face-to-face transactions in this country, that only one company has come forward with the problem at this point makes we wonder if something else isn’t going on here.
Wrong. There are no non-face-to-face sales occurring legally in this country between manufacturers, distributors and retailers and retail customers. Period.
Firearms’ “purchased” online are actually shipped to a FFL holder (retailer), who processes these sales as they would any other retail sale for a handling charge that varies from location to location.
Deepdiver–yeah, I wonder if there’s something about this particular company or about the particular transaction that turned the credit card company off. I hope so.
Because otherwise this is a moron-plus idea. Let’s turn the whole gun industry into a cash-only enterprise!
They (in a broader sense) would like to offer illegal aliens a “no strings attached” credit account but to hell with letting US citizens legally own a firearm.
regal on January 9, 2008 at 3:53 PM
we were terminated and funds were being seized
someone may have done a chargeback, and as a result the CC processor gets to keep all the money from it, for a month or 2 while they sort it out.
Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on January 9, 2008 at 3:56 PM
Bob Owens on January 9, 2008 at 3:37 PM
Not wrong given the way the issue was discussed in the letter. The letter ignored whether or not an FFL was involved at the end of the transaction, as would be required for interstate or retail sales, and they were describing any online gun sale as non-face-to-face, which they are, until the final stage where the firearm is received by the end purchaser from an FFL. Although that does bring up an interesting point. Is this a management decision made out of total ignorance of how online gun sales actually work? Are they completely ignorant of the fact that CDNM is only shipping to FFLs where the purchaser must appear to complete the transaction face-to-face? Or has CDNM violated the law and actually shipped to a non-FFL and that is where this is coming from and why we haven’t heard about any other companies receiving such letters? I still am reserving judgment until there is more info.
deepdiver on January 9, 2008 at 4:01 PM
I’ve been involved in a case where federal gun laws were violated by a fellow employee conducting a strawman sale, and trust me: the feds don’t play games with this kind of stuff.
If the distributer had violated the law, they would face quite a bit more than a business letter. There likely wouldn’t be a distributor to shutdown, as CDNM would have had their FFL suspended or revoked.
That’s what I would have thought, Bob. This situation just isn’t making sense. If this is just a general stance from Citiservices, why aren’t we seeing numerous FFLs receiving such letters?
deepdiver on January 9, 2008 at 4:40 PM
NSSF seems to think that the are coming, and that CDNM may be merely the first that has contacted them.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Registration is currently closed. That means if you're not already registered, you can't comment. We will let you know if and when registration re-opens. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
By credit card processing, I assume this is not the bank but the actual company that records the transaction, right?
If so, this sounds like a contractual violation. Especially if no prior revision to the contract was communicated and agreed to by both parties. I smell a lawsuit, especially since the transaction is legal.
Andy in Agoura Hills on January 9, 2008 at 2:56 PM
Okay, I just read the letter from the processing company.
Two points:
1. The GCA of 1968 allows interstate sales of firearms between individual FFLs. So Rivera-Mantilla is wrong.
2. Who the hell is this company to enforce a law that is the responsiblity of law enforcement BATF, FBI, etc.???? Are they actually investigating this company’s business practices???
This sounds like, once again, a liberal gun-grab ploy.
Andy in Agoura Hills on January 9, 2008 at 3:07 PM
While the concept of such a restriction boils the blood and sends me through the roof, I’m a little leery of getting too excited about the actuality until we have more information. As many firearms as are sold through non-face-to-face transactions in this country, that only one company has come forward with the problem at this point makes we wonder if something else isn’t going on here.
deepdiver on January 9, 2008 at 3:13 PM
What’s in your wallet, indeed.
BillH on January 9, 2008 at 3:30 PM
Wrong. There are no non-face-to-face sales occurring legally in this country between manufacturers, distributors and retailers and retail customers. Period.
Firearms’ “purchased” online are actually shipped to a FFL holder (retailer), who processes these sales as they would any other retail sale for a handling charge that varies from location to location.
Bob Owens on January 9, 2008 at 3:37 PM
All local, state, and Federal laws and regulations still apply.
Bob Owens on January 9, 2008 at 3:38 PM
Deepdiver–yeah, I wonder if there’s something about this particular company or about the particular transaction that turned the credit card company off. I hope so.
Because otherwise this is a moron-plus idea. Let’s turn the whole gun industry into a cash-only enterprise!
see-dubya on January 9, 2008 at 3:38 PM
They (in a broader sense) would like to offer illegal aliens a “no strings attached” credit account but to hell with letting US citizens legally own a firearm.
regal on January 9, 2008 at 3:53 PM
someone may have done a chargeback, and as a result the CC processor gets to keep all the money from it, for a month or 2 while they sort it out.
Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on January 9, 2008 at 3:56 PM
Not wrong given the way the issue was discussed in the letter. The letter ignored whether or not an FFL was involved at the end of the transaction, as would be required for interstate or retail sales, and they were describing any online gun sale as non-face-to-face, which they are, until the final stage where the firearm is received by the end purchaser from an FFL. Although that does bring up an interesting point. Is this a management decision made out of total ignorance of how online gun sales actually work? Are they completely ignorant of the fact that CDNM is only shipping to FFLs where the purchaser must appear to complete the transaction face-to-face? Or has CDNM violated the law and actually shipped to a non-FFL and that is where this is coming from and why we haven’t heard about any other companies receiving such letters? I still am reserving judgment until there is more info.
deepdiver on January 9, 2008 at 4:01 PM
I’ve been involved in a case where federal gun laws were violated by a fellow employee conducting a strawman sale, and trust me: the feds don’t play games with this kind of stuff.
If the distributer had violated the law, they would face quite a bit more than a business letter. There likely wouldn’t be a distributor to shutdown, as CDNM would have had their FFL suspended or revoked.
Bob Owens on January 9, 2008 at 4:25 PM
That’s what I would have thought, Bob. This situation just isn’t making sense. If this is just a general stance from Citiservices, why aren’t we seeing numerous FFLs receiving such letters?
deepdiver on January 9, 2008 at 4:40 PM
NSSF seems to think that the are coming, and that CDNM may be merely the first that has contacted them.
I guess we’ll see.
Bob Owens on January 9, 2008 at 4:54 PM
Citibank has a history of harassing firearms-related companies going back to at least 2000.
http://ads.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15298
mojojojo on January 9, 2008 at 4:55 PM
I was not aware of Citibank’s anti-firearm stances. I can tell you what is NOT going to be in my wallet any longer.
deepdiver on January 9, 2008 at 5:27 PM