Searched and didn't see any other threads.

https://nypost.com/2018/04/04/...k-down-on-gun-sales/

DiNapoli urges banks, credit companies to crack down on gun sales By Kevin Dugan April 4, 2018

The head of New York’s giant state pension has asked the leaders of Visa, Mastercard, and some of the biggest Wall Street banks to take steps to crack down on gun purchases made through the financial system, according to a letter obtained by The Post.

State Comptroller Thomas J. DiNapoli sent letters to nine different financial institutions asking them to consider “implementing a system that could reject the purchases” of guns and ammunition, according to a letter sent to Mastercard.

Other letters were sent to JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Discover, American Express, First Data, and Worldpay, a spokesman for DiNapoli told The Post.

The New York state pension — the nation’s third-largest with $209.1 billion in assets — has stakes in all those companies.

The letter, which references the shootings in Parkland, Fla, and Sandy Hook, claims that the companies need to address how mass shootings can hurt the reputations and stock prices of companies that allow people to buy guns.

“I am writing to express my concern that Mastercard may suffer reputational harm because it allows its banking services to be used in firearms transactions,” DiNapoli wrote.

MasterCard didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

DiNapoli noted that banks and credit-card companies in the past have blocked purchases from other organizations that cause “reputational or societal harm,” citing clampdowns on contributions to Wikileaks as an example.

The pension isn’t the first institution to try to block gun purchases through the financial system. Last month, Citigroup said it would no longer do business with companies that sell guns.

quote:

“I am writing to express my concern that Mastercard may suffer reputational harm because it allows its banking services to be used in firearms transactions,” DiNapoli wrote.

So will violent crime be reduced if these financial companies refuse to do business with firearm firms.

quote:

“I am writing to express my concern that Mastercard may suffer reputational harm because it allows its banking services to be used in firearms transactions,” DiNapoli wrote.

In other words... "Nice company you have here. It'd be a shame if anything happened to it."

These leftist goons are nothing but gangsters. Wannabe authoritarians. Screw them.

sounds like a good way to create a run on banks, perhaps gun owners will switch to gold, silver, or bitcoin.

Sorry this is nonsense. Gun owners need to do business in the regular financial system, just like everyone else. Do they have regular jobs? Yes. Do they own houses and have mortgages? Yes. Do they need to buy stuff from retailers who won't take anything but the normal cash or banking system based payment methods? Yes.

quote:

Originally posted by Voshterkoff:
sounds like a good way to create a run on banks, perhaps gun owners will switch to gold, silver, or bitcoin.

More like "I control XXX,XXX,XXX shares of your stock. Other state controllers from states like CA, CT, MA, NJ etc., control XXX,XXX,XXX more. If you want to not see a proxy war on your reappointment as CEO, do what we tell you.

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:

quote:

“I am writing to express my concern that Mastercard may suffer reputational harm because it allows its banking services to be used in firearms transactions,” DiNapoli wrote.

In other words... "Nice company you have here. It'd be a shame if anything happened to it."

These leftist goons are nothing but gangsters. Wannabe authoritarians. Screw them.

To clarify, those methods for firearm purchases.

Okay. Would gun stores take those, seeing as they have to pay their suppliers, and other creditors in dollars?

And it would take a hell of a lot more to create a bank run.

quote:

Originally posted by Voshterkoff:
To clarify, those methods for firearm purchases.

Methinks that's WAY too much $$ in gun/ammo purchases, and interest/profit, for the CC companies to pass up.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
“I am writing to express my concern that Mastercard may suffer reputational harm because it allows its banking services to be used in firearms transactions,” DiNapoli wrote.

I'm hoping some organizations will "suffer reputational harm" for caving in to such demands.

I don't think civilian guns sales in totality even constitutes a zit on the ass of CC companies profits. Wouldn't even wiggle the needle.

Edit: I got curious, and looked.

The revenue of the gun and ammo manufacturing industry in 2015 was $13.5 billion. I couldn't find a retail sales number. But considering a good chunk of the manufactures sales go to other than civilian retail, retail sales are probably something at or less than that.

Also in 2015, Visa and Mastercard together had total transaction volume of about $1.8 trillion. So retail gun and ammo sales are probably something like 0.5-0.75% of their transaction volume (which is higher than I thought it would be.)

quote:

Originally posted by Outnumbered:
Methinks that's WAY too much $$ in gun/ammo purchases, and interest profit, for the CC companies to pass up.

Let’s see the Left in New York doesn’t like
Guns
Soft drinks
Tobacco products?
What else?

Would there be any reason to use a credit card if all the politically incorrect uses were rejected? That ought to put the brakes on run-a-way credit card debt...

So now they want to politicize the economy? I don’t care what your ideology is, you have to be an idiot to not see why this is a bad idea.

Bringing politics into our products (aka boycotts) helps no one.

Yes, but the anti, having been largely thwarted in the political arena, especially at the national level, are looking for other ways they stop the sales of guns and ammo.

As a pressure point, this is viable. They don't have to pass legislation. They just have to convince private businesses that they'll lose more money from actions taken by these state level agencies, than they'd make by allowing gun companies to use their platforms.

quote:

Originally posted by esdunbar:
So now they want to politicize the economy? I don’t care what your ideology is, you have to be an idiot to not see why this is a bad idea.

Bringing politics into our products (aka boycotts) helps no one.

There are plenty of questionable things you can order online that claim they come in 'non-descript' packaging with 'safe to read' receipts and charges on your card.

What's to stop the gun store from doing the same thing?

Dale's Fine Soaps G&A shop. All guns/ammo are rung up as bulk soap purchases.

One doesn't normally send their toiletries to an FFL holder.

quote:

Originally posted by Scurvy:
There are plenty of questionable things you can order online that claim they come in 'non-descript' packaging with 'safe to read' receipts and charges on your card.

What's to stop the gun store from doing the same thing?

Dale's Fine Soaps G&A shop. All guns/ammo are rung up as bulk soap purchases.

Because processor's and banks are required to do due diligence to know exactly what you do/sell/how you make money. How those business's choose to label said products/receipts is a different matter.

Fascist fuckface, fuck off.

Perfectly typical leftist tactic. They have absolutely no respect for the law, but use the law in any way they can to advance their agenda.

quote:

“I am writing to express my concern that Mastercard may suffer reputational harm because it allows its banking services to be used in firearms transactions”

Oh, please. You don't give a rat's ass about Mastecard's "reputation". Just stow the horse shit. Everyone knows what you're trying to do and everyone knows precisely why you're doing it. You're the same as all other leftists- you don't believe in the Constitution and you have no respect for our laws. You only use these laws to advance your commie agenda.

Not even a new rope, partner, and I'd leave your body hanging until scavengers had picked it to pieces.

What baffles me is that obvious ploys like this actually work. Were I presented with a letter like that, I'd circular file it with extreme prejudice.