.jpg) |
A major credit card company has issued a letter to a gun dealer canceling his payment processing services because of corporate concerns firearms were being sold to consumers in other states, in “a non face-to-face environment.” Now the move has raised the ire of the National Shooting Sports Foundation.
“Your anti-gun corporate policy is based on ignorance of the law applicable to the sale of firearms,” the NSSF wrote in response to the action taken by First Data Corp., which operates Citi Merchant Services.
“It is perfectly legal, in fact commonplace, for a federal firearms licensee in one state to sell a firearm to a non-licensee (consumer) from another state,” the foundation continued. “What you fail to appreciate is that the firearm is not shipped in interstate commerce directly to the consumer. Rather, as required by federal law, the firearm is shipped by the selling licensee to another federal firearms licensee in the state of residence of the consumer … The consumer acquires the firearm from that licensed dealer in a face-to-face transaction….”
The issue arose when Citi Merchant Services, in a letter signed by June Rivera-Mantilla in the “Periodic Review” department, informed CDNN Sports In. of Abilene, Texas, that the company’s bankcard processing services were cancelled, and that the banking company was withholding $75,000 as a reserve for “potential chargebacks” and it would be held for six months or longer.
Officials with CDNN declined to discuss the situation with WND, citing the “litigation” that was ongoing over the dispute. But they confirmed that the letter documenting the actions by Citi Merchant Services was accurate.
And a statement from CDNN President Charlie Crawford was posted on the NSSF site. “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. 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.”
“We discussed with Mr. [Charlie] Crawford said termination due to the sale of firearms in a non face-to-face environment,” the letter said. “Keep in mind that a violation of the Gun Control Act occurs when a gun offered online is sold to an individual in another State; the act prohibits selling a handgun to a resident of another state. Shipping across state lines is also banned, yet guns for sale online reach people across the country. We at Citi Merchant Service are unable to monitor or track adherence to these Gun Control laws,” the letter said.
NSSF officials posted the information on their website, prompting a request from Citi Merchant Services to take the information down.
“The posting is inaccurate,” an e-mail, signed only First Data Corp., told the foundation. “Further, while we generally do not comment on individual merchant customers, we would like to briefly address the 12/26 letter posted on your web site. Regretfully, that letter did a less than satisfactory job of expressing applicable policies.”
The e-mail said Citi Merchant Services and First Data “do process firearms transactions. Our policy restrictions address only the sale of firearms in a non face-to-face environment.” Those happen when a cardholder is “not present in front of a merchant and includes mail order and online purchases.”
“It is our policy not to service merchants that make non face-to-face sales in a number of industries, including firearms,” the e-mail said.
The foundation declined to change its information.
“Regrettably, your e-mail serves to confirm the anti-gun corporate policy of First Data and Citi Merchant Services and that the article in our publication ‘Bullet Points,’ and subsequent posting to our Website, was based on a correct and accurate understanding of that policy…,” the group said.
“Furthermore, the policy of First Data and Citi Merchant Services interferes with the receiving and shipping of inventory from and to federally licensed firearms retailers, distributors and manufacturers. This inventory supplies not only law-abiding Americans, but military and law enforcement agencies as well,” the foundation said.
In a statement to WND, Cara Taylor, communications director for First Data, continued to maintain that the NSSF postings were inaccurate.
“First Data processes more card transactions for gun sales in a face to face environment than any other credit card processor,” her statement said. “We do not have a position in the debate about gun control policy. Our credit policies center around certain transactions that occur in a non face-to-face environment and involve third parties to which First Data has no contractual relationship, and therefore pose business concerns about the risk of certain types of transactions.”
Ryan Horsley, a spokesman for Red’s Trading Post in Twin Falls, Idaho, which has its own battle running over gun sales restrictions, said it appears to be another channel through which anti-gun interests can apply pressure to gun retailers.
He told WND he’s experienced difficulties with several other card companies “that have taken that bias.”
He said he’s even heard of personal accounts at billing industry giant PayPal being cancelled because a single transaction involving a gun.
As WND has reported, Horsley’s company is in a court fight now with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives over paperwork errors that largely involved insignificant issues, such as a missing poster or a purchaser failing to provide a county of residence to accompany and street and city address.
Inspectors for the BATFE have been visiting his business regularly in search of records mistakes, he said.
WND also reported earlier how the store appears to be caught up in a new campaign for gun control, focusing on the elimination of retail outlets through technical rules infractions.
His battle is pending in federal court.
Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America told WND that as recently as 15 or 20 years ago, there were 250,000 licensed gun dealers in the United States. The federal government confirms there are only about 108,000 now.
It was in 2000 when a
series of WorldNetDaily reports exposed Citibank’s practice of
denying banking services to
firearms business, and the global financial giant reversed its “longstanding” policy.
A spokesman at that time said firearms businesses would be reviewed just like other businesses in determining whether account services would be provided. The reversal came after a situation in which a Las Vegas branch of Citibank closed a three-day-old
checking account opened by the Nevada Pistol Academy, a local shooting
club. At that time, local area branch managers told the academy’s
director, Chris Lorenzo, in a letter, “Due to Citibank not
maintaining accounts for businesses that deal in weapons,” the account
would have to be closed.
Special offers:
Shooting Back: The Right and Duty of Self-Defense (DVD)
When it’s time to shoot back – Get ‘Armed Response,’ the guide to firearms, self-defense
Perfect gift for pistol-packin’ mama – ‘Stayin’ Alive’ shows guns are indeed for girls
Related stories:
BATF rebuked for attacks on gun dealers
Gun shop: Complaint could have been ruse
Gun-shop owner gets ‘breath of fresh air’
‘Blog’ puts fear into gun shop inspectors
New gun control: Shut down shops
Your doctor could put you on no-gun list
Expert offers teachers free weapons training
State quashed bill allowing handguns on campuses
Trial will debate 2nd Amendment rights
New use for schoolbooks: Stopping bullets
New Yorkers rally for ‘illegal’ guns
Clinton-era war on guns revealed
U.N. gun confab ends in frustration
The U.N.: Gunning for more power
Michael Douglas backs U.N. gun ban
‘Anti-gang’ bill endangers gun rights?
County drops homeowner gun charges
Citibank kills firearms policy
Citibank forces gun withdrawal
Citibank confirms anti-gun stance
Related commentaries:
The history of gun control, part 2
The history of gun control, part 1
Our God-given right of self-defense
People power, not police power
Why citizens must own and carry firearms
Self-defense risky? Try the alternative
How often do Americans use guns for defensive purposes?
