Citibank Stance on Firearm Sales Presents Decision for Gun Owners

They can make their business decisions and gun owners can make theirs.

USA – -(Ammoland.com)- “Citigroup is setting restrictions on the sale of firearms by its business customers, making it the first Wall Street bank to take a stance in the divisive nationwide gun control debate,” The New York Times is reporting. “The new policy, announced Thursday, prohibits the sale of firearms to customers who have not passed a background check or who are younger than 21. It also bars the sale of bump stocks and high-capacity magazines. It would apply to clients who offer credit cards backed by Citigroup or borrow money, use banking services or raise capital through the company.”

“As a society, we all know that something needs to change. And as a company, we feel we must do our part,” Citigroup virtue oozes on its blog while claiming “It is not centered on an ideological mission to rid the world of firearms. That is not what we seek.”

That’s what they’re helping bring about as they align themselves with and help advance the goals of gloating gun-grabbers who do seek that.

“We have few relationships with companies that manufacture firearms,” Citigroup notes before dropping the other shoe. “For those that do, we will be initiating due diligence conversations on the subject to better understand what products they make, what markets and retailers they sell to and what sales practices those retailers follow to ensure adherence to the best practices outlined above. This same due diligence screening will apply to potential clients going forward.”

In other words, it's their way or the highway.

And that’s just the direct anti-gun action on the company’s part. Indirectly, they have helped fund “opposition to … Donald Trump’s refugee and immigration policies.” That’s relevant because the push is on by constituent-building Democrats (and cheap labor Republicans) for amnesty, and “birthright citizenship” already exists. By all credible polls such populations favor gun restrictions by an overwhelming margin. This is also proven in the real world by the California experience.

Further, per Wall Street on Parade (rated “left-center,” so it’s not like I’m cherry-picking for a source that politically agrees with me):

“[E]mails from WikiLeaks show that President Obama, using the email address of [email protected], was communicating directly with Michael Froman of Citigroup in 2008, who fed Obama lists of recommended appointments to his cabinet. In an email from Froman dated October 6, 2008, with Froman using his Citigroup email address of [email protected], Hillary Clinton shows up on Froman’s list for Secretary of State or head of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). In a separate list attached to the email, Eric Holder was recommended for U.S. Attorney General at the Department of Justice or as White House Counsel. … In less than a month after Obama’s election as President on November 4, 2008, Obama had nominated Clinton to be his Secretary of State and Holder as his Attorney General. Despite the unprecedented corruption rooted out on Wall Street by regulators, Holder failed to prosecute any of Wall Street’s top executives for the crimes that led to the greatest financial crash since the Great Depression.”

Perhaps there's still a use for these.

So the questions for gun owners who do business with Citigroup are:

Are YOU giving aid and comfort to the enemy? Why?

I asked those on my WarOnGuns blog and it elicited an intriguing reader response:

“Nope… Wired the entirety of a savings account I had with them to another bank, promptly cashed in my rewards points for gift cards and closed my 22-year long credit card account with them. When asked what made me decide to terminate all my accounts; I told them very specifically, asked them to note the reason on my accounts and also asked them to specifically note that I would be using the gift cards to buy ‘high capacity magazines.’

“For those inclined to do the same, they offer Cabelas gift cards through the rewards program…”

If his example is followed by every gun owner who still has accounts, it might make Citigroup’s next quarterly report reflect more disappointment for investors than the “Net Loss of $18.3 Billion ($7.15 per Share)” reported for Fourth Quarter 2017. And while some analysts may dismiss that as a “paper loss” due to tax code changes that they’ll soon shake off, perhaps gun owners can still show them unwarranted attacks can be costly — as they have before.


About David Codrea:David Codrea

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.

In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

  • 145 thoughts on “Citibank Stance on Firearm Sales Presents Decision for Gun Owners

    1. You are arguing with the US Constitution — which all the states of the United States agreed with — the territory of the United States was understood at the time the constitution was first agreed to — at the time of the Civil War — and today as meaning the same thing.

      The South, at the time of the civil war, was attempting to use violence (war) to make the North agree to a new political solution, where the South is allowed to leave the United States.

      The South loses this gamble by the Democratic elites….

      E. Bryan Hoover

    2. Wild B[ll wrote “@E.Bryan Hoover, Where exactly in the Constitution does it say, “…(according to the Constitution a majority of the country must agree they can leave)… And what is this: …”temporary Constitutional protection for slavery was about to expire)… that you write about. As to Lincoln, he was not anti-slave. Lincoln said that if he could free some of the slaves, all of the slaves, or none of the slaves to preserve the Union he would do any of those.
      And how are your assertions germane to the issue of CitiCorp taking an anti-Civil Rights stand.”

      I will answer the second question first:

      From the national archives, https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript:

      The US Constitution, national Archives, Article. IV., Section. 3.

      “New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

      The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”

      I normally agree with you Wtld Bill, but in this case you are wrong…

      E.Bryan Hoover

      1. E Brian, you just refuted yourself in your post with your reference. West Virginia did not have approval from Virginia to separate. Isn’t the USA going to war to repatriate the secession states prejudicing their claim (right) to secede?

      2. @EBH, I don’t know how I can be wrong when all I did was ask where in the Constitution you found the provisions that allow a state to leave if a majority of other states agree.
        Now lets examine Article IV, section 3. Hmmm, I am just not seeing the words “leave” or “consent” or “majority of states”. So is there some extrapolation or logical extension that you are using to get there?
        As I recall Jefferson Davis and the seceding states made the argument that they had the Right to secede based upon the Articles of Confederation. Davis makes a brilliant argument in this two volume work “The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government.” Please see Vol. I and the Articles of Confederation

        1. I suggest you take a course in reading for meaning.

          To wit, Article. IV., Section. 3, states: “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States…”

          It is right there — for every one to see— but you can show it to them — but you can not make them read it …

          Again, I suggest you take a course in reading for meaning.

            1. @Heed, you are correct, the states are not properties for Congress to dispose of (meaning sell). Typically, when Congress passes an enabling act that creates a state from what was a territory, Congress keeps some of the land. As a requirement of becoming a state, Congress will require everyone, with some claim to that retained land, to renounce their claim. Thus Congress has land to sell, and the constitutional power to sell it.
              The United States was intended to be forever, even before the Constitution (e. g. the proper title of the Articles of Confederation is “The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union”.)

            2. You are arguing with the US Constitution — which all the states of the United States agreed with — the territory of the United States was understood at the time the constitution was first agreed to — at the time of the Civil War — and today as meaning the same thing.

              The South, at the time of the civil war, was attempting to use violence (war) to make the North agree to a new political solution, where the South is allowed to leave the United States.

              The South loses this gamble by the Democratic elites.

              E. Bryan Hoover

          1. WB, that was my point, that the USA is a construct of the union of the states, not the other way around, and as such is not the controlling entity, the states are. Just as in any other partnership or corporation, the parties that formed the entity, in this case the USA, is legally allowed to terminate such agreement. I don’t see anywhere that the USA must agree to that, kind of like divorce, one party might want to stay married, but that doesn’t prevent the termination of the agreement.

            1. @Heed, no, that is not correct. The union is perpetual. The thirteen original colonies intended the union to be forever. The proper title of the Articles of Confederation is “The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union”. The perpetual nature of the union did not change with the ratification of the Constitution. Once a territory becomes a state it is part of the union forever. That is why Puerto Rico declines statehood, whenever it comes up.
              We must not try to analogize the legal theory of what the founders set up to modern divorce law because we will not get the proper analytical result.

      3. @E.Bryan Hoover…Unless I miss read your first statement , it was about states leaving the union.
        Your answer was about creating new states .
        Apples and oranges , typical liberal way of answering a question , CHANGE the question .

        1. @OV, Yes, you are correct. The best argument for a state leaving the union was made by Jefferson Davis. The best answer to JDs argument was Texas v. White.

    3. By the way, respecting that “give us an inch and we will take a mile”, and the spoiled ” bratitis ” that gives rise to such rubbish, much better men and women have died protecting their right to mouth such arrant nonsense. By the way, they too have the ancient right to Keep and Bear Arms, should they so choose, they being free to exercise or not, that basic right. To date, the questionable antics they display trying to upset the constitutional rights of others are less than acceptable, though they are certainly entitled to petition their elected representatives respecting such changes in the constitution as they might desire. I suspect that there would be no end to the pissing and moaning were their tactics used against them, possibly a deserved fate.

    4. Wild Bill:

      The question I posed applies, with equal force to extraneous, non-germane topics such as Slavery, something that in this country, is pretty much long gone.

      1. @Alan…Again the lib-tards have renamed it . It is not forgotten it is now called repatriation . They use it to get anything they think they can get .

    5. Talk about lies and propaganda by the individual who is posting under the screen name of “Trumped” – the southern Democratic politicians had their states leave the United States in violation of the Constitution’s legal requirements for leaving the country (according to the Constitution a majority of the country must agree they can leave) — WHY DID THEY ILLEGALLY TRY TO LEAVE THE US — because the temporary Constitutional protection for slavery was about to expire – AND THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WOULD PASS LAWS AGAINST SLAVERY – THIS ANTI-SLAVERY MOVEMENT WAS LEAD BY REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT LINCOLN. HE (LINCOLN) RAN ON, AND WAS ELECTED, AS AN ANTI-SLAVERY REPUBLICAN.

      Lies and propaganda by the individual who is posting under the screen name of “Trumped”.

      The elite Democrats in the Southern States would have never taken the risky, illegal, move of armed rebellion against the United States if the end of slavery in the United States was not a given if they stayed in the United States.

      1. @E.Bryan Hoover, Where exactly in the Constitution does it say, “…(according to the Constitution a majority of the country must agree they can leave)… And what is this: …”temporary Constitutional protection for slavery was about to expire)… that you write about. As to Lincoln, he was not anti-slave. Lincoln said that if he could free some of the slaves, all of the slaves, or none of the slaves to preserve the Union he would do any of those.
        And how are your assertions germane to the issue of CitiCorp taking an anti-Civil Rights stand.

        1. Wild Bill:

          I find myself curious regarding the following. This discussion concerning the latest antics of CITI seemingly has run rather far afield. The following is not intended to question anyone’s right to speak or question, it’s intent is simply to comment, and raise a question.

          1. @Alan, I found myself curious, too, regarding where in the U.S. Constitution are the purported provisions for a state leaving the union, as I have never come across them. If my reading of Texas v. White is correct, then once a state is allowed to become part of the union, thereafter it can not ever leave.
            I suppose that this topic could have been better placed else where, but the door was opened to inquiry, here. And I did not open it.

      2. @EBH, The lib/prog/socialists want to reduce your Constitutional Civil Rights to mere privileges allowed by the government. The Chinese and the moslems want to take over North America. But you are still mired in the issues of the Unpleasantness of 152 years ago.
        By the way, there was a cyber attack last night that shut down four natural gas delivery companies. The perpetrator is unknown. No need to use missiles or bombers, if a country’s electricity, natural gas, oil refineries, and industries can be shut down over the internet.
        Better be laying in a years worth of canned food, and other logistics, America!

      3. Incorrect. Lincoln threatened military invasion in his Inaugural Address against any state not collecting the full tariff rate, supported the Corwin Amendment forever allowing slavery, and enforced the Fugitive Slave Act during the war to supposedly free the slaves, and the EP exempted every area controlled by the North in the southern states to avoid freeing one slave.. Lincoln stated many times he would not touch the slaves as long as the union stayed together, and appointed general grant, who had been in charge of a slave plantation, to lead the northern side. Not to mention his lifelong goal of deporting all blacks, free of slave, anywhere but the US, so whatever site you copied and pasted from after having your temper tantrum did not give you the complete picture.

        By the way, the people ratified the constitution based upon the terms of the contract promised in the ratification debates. Jefferson, madison, and even Hamilton all stated the states could leave in peace if they believed the terms promised during ratification were not being upheld by the central government. Sorry, but whatever socialist and neocon garbage you are reading and parroting about lincoln is wrong.

        1. @Trumped, To whom are you responding? And to which of the Federalist Papers are you referring in your second paragraph?

          1. Sorry, I was responding to e Bryan Hoover calling me a liar and saying i posted propaganda for correctly pointing out that Lincoln did not care about slavery. He is the only person who has been rude during this exchange, and really seemed to take offense at my post about Lincoln.

            Only federalists were at the federalist papers debate of course, but during ratification debates across the states lots of things were promised that ended up being a lie. For one, it was promised that the federal courts would never rule on state laws – just federal issues. That’s why Madison said after the mculloch vs maryland decision that had the people known the supreme court would rule on state cases they would have never ratified the constitution. He was right.

            The people who argue that states could not secede seem to think that sovereign states can be completely misled about a contract, agree to the contract, and then are bound for life to that contract no matter how many falsely that contract was represented. Of course, it is an even odder view when it comes from people who also cite the founders giving us the 2nd amendment to fight our own government if it becomes out of control! And that the people who created this did it a few years agter a violent war with the British over self rule.

    6. Never have owned any, never will. Was a brainwashed slave myself when I was a debt collector for them. I saw the light and quit. But, they gave Jedi level training, (indoctrination and manipulation), on how to punch the right buttons and successfully shake the $ tree. Now, I only use the power very selectively and I sleep much better. N.B., there are always at least three sides to every story, sometimes four if you’re lucky. Back to the main topic. Some people want to be told what to do. It spares them from their painful burden of having to think.

    7. Don’t forget CITI devolved from the Bank of New York. The Bank of New York “loaned” the $ to fund the north and enabled Mr. Lincolns’ war of aggression against the South. They (CITY BANK), is the source of this information. It’s part of their “required” A/V presentation for all new employees. Also, the don’t allow firearms in employees vehicles in their parking lots.

        1. Had Lincoln had his wish granted slavery would still be the law of the land, BJI. After all, he favored an amendment to the constitution forever allowing it.

    8. https://mobile.twitter.com/Citibank/status/973951517190508544

      Citibank will literally promote on their twitter account a crack dealer who stabbed a record producer in 1999 and who shot his own brother, but doing business with anyone who sells rifles to a 20 year old or sells standard capacity mags is apparently too extreme for them. Most of the crime and murders involving guns are from inner city drug dealers and gangs like jay z types – exactly the problem that citi claims to be trying to solve. How about not glorifying crack dealers who stab coworkers instead of blaming non criminal citizens?

    9. Manuel:

      With respect, you are entitled to your opinion, which I strongly disagree with. One point for you to consider. The often announced goals of the anti gun people, repeated many times over the years have been, are and remain the total prohibition of firearms ownership by other than government actors. If achievement of this goal is something that you can accept, that is your choice, something I disagree with, but your choice. It is not now, nor will it ever be something that I will accept. Think carefully before you choose, as you might not have the opportunity to reconsider.

    10. I have NEVER left a “comment” before. Now it’s time. For starters, I am a gun owner. Multiple firearms in two states. I support the right to “bear arms”. I shoot weekly at a range. Got it? I believe that responsible healthy adults should have the right to own guns for recreational shooting, home defense and hunting. I believe that many “second ammendment” folks are extremists in regard to gun ownership. And therby cause PR and potential unnecessary legal restrictions for the rest of us. My definition of extremists are folks who oppose backround checks-are you kidding me? People who oppose restrictions on bump stocks-are you kidding me? People who oppose restrictions on high capacity magazines-are you kidding me? Those of us who own guns for home defense, recreational shooting or hunting don’t need bump stocks or high capacity magazines. Buy extra magazines if you shoot alot. For me, “common sense gun control” is simple: some people should not be allowed to have any weapons and nobody needs to have some weapons. This will not satisfy many anti-gun people but it makes sense once the debate is underway. It’s a defensible approach.

      1. Let me see if I can get the tone right. Scoped hunting rifles that can kill children 1000 yards away – are you kidding me? Hunting ammunition with three times the energy of the AR-15 round – are you kidding me? For me, common sense gun control is simple: other people shouldn’t be allowed to have weapons I don’t have and have no desire to own.

      2. We are right back to this… and enough is enough! Who the hell are YOU to put limits on other citizens’ rights?

        The Bill of Rights is not a list of “needs,” although you are correct that firearms are actually not “necessary.” Neither are toothpaste, deodorant, fire extinguishers, auto/home/life insurance, or spare tires… but I have those things AND guns – specifically by MY sane, rational, intelligent choice. Unlike government-granted privileges (like automobiles), ownership of firearms is specified as Constitutionally-guaranteed to all law-abiding citizens.

        And the Founding Fathers adamantly insisted (see the Federalist Papers) that citizens must be free to own firearms “suitable for war.” Your opinions to the contrary are worthless.

      3. Manuel, how many background checks does a law-abiding person need to have before you understand the fruitlessness of the endeavor? I have probably had more than most criminals. Has that made me, you and society safer? The LV shooter and others legally acquired their firearms. They were not prohibited persons. Felons and other prohibited persons are still able to obtain and possess firearms via illegal means, wherein they do not get background checks. This proves the fallacy of background checks.

        Bump stocks? If you have been following the discussion on this and other firearm-related sites, you should, well before now, have gotten a good education on that topic. Also, proving the fallacy of that ban.

        What’s a “high-cap” magazine? In some states it’s more than 10-rounds; in others, 15; in others, a magazine of greater capacity than is standard issue for that firearm. Also, there are states, such as mine, Virginia, that allows “high-cap” magazines for handguns when at the range or on private property, but are limited to a 20-round magazine when carrying in public. We are, however, allowed to carry as many magazines as we want.

        The key to all of this is education. We need to educate those that are willing to learn – that is exactly what I do. To people that lack knowledge of firearms, these “common-sense” ideas sound reasonable. Once they are educated, they understand that these ideas are false and bad. You need to do your part and educate yourself, and then teach others.

      4. Manuel,
        What is the “correct” number of rounds a magazine should be allowed to hold? In New York, only seven! If you ask anti-gunners, you will hear “one”, “two” or “zero.” You should listen to the speech given by a girl at the “March for Our Lives.” She said, “When they give us an inch, we will take a mile.” That is an accurate summary of the strategy – I’m surprised the organizers allowed her to say it – and she was not simply speaking for herself, but for the entire movement. They will not stop until we have UK-style laws: no handguns, long guns limited to one or two shots, and oh, yeah, no right of self-defense.

      5. @Manuel, Perhaps if you read the Second Amendment and the case law your opinion of “second amendment (sic) folks”. Our Civil Rights do not apply to only “healthy adults”. Rights are not to be confused with benefits, prerogatives, entitlements, or dispensations. There is no such thing as a high capacity magazine. Common sense gun control is a propaganda term made up by Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels, on the occasion of the disarming of the German people.
        As to your “…For me, “common sense gun control” is simple: some people should not be allowed to have any weapons and nobody needs to have…” There is no allowed in our Civil Right that is outlined in the Bill of Rights (please see 2nd). Nor is it common sense for you to decide what I need. It is just rude.
        In sum, I do not believe that you are a firearms owner. You are a troll with a goal.

        1. Correct, WildBill !

          However, we should all be impressed. There is a a specific relationship between his cranium and his rectum that is biologically impossible, yet this gentleman has nonetheless managed to accomplish it.

      6. @Manuel …When I completed my military training I was sworn under a Top Secret/Crypto security clearance . (Doubt hiLIARY passed any investigation any higher) How many more back ground checks do I need ?? I do believe you are a pick-a-name for the day TROLL !!

      7. @Manuel…You start out raising three Red Flags that socialist/communist Trolls can’t seem to resist .
        1 have never left comment before !
        2 I am a gun owner (“in two states”!!)
        3 I shoot weekly at a range .
        Are you kidding me?

    11. Not a citi bank customer and now I never will be. I’ll make sure to give my business to those that stay away from my personal freedoms.

    12. Spread the word. Everyone should share this article on social media and to friends/relatives about how anti gun the big banksters at Citi are about the deplorables daring to own firearms. Let the backlash against Citi continue to spread!

      #BanCiti

    13. This conversation has been going on for a long time. taking away guns, threatening to take them, wanting to take them. For the average citizen, this is a waste of time. There are enough GOOD reasons that it’s protected by the SECOND amendment. The FIRST amendment gives everyone who so desires, the RIGHT to whine about the SECOND amendment, but it’s the SECOND amendment that PROTECTS the FIRST and ALL THE OTHERS. People KEEP FORGETTING THAT. If you want to take away something that will DO GOOD, take away TEXTING WHILE DRIVING. We CAN DO THAT! It will save HUNDREDS more lives in A SINGLE YEAR. If this is REALLY about saving lives, get on with it!

      1. Mark:

        Touché. Otherwise, it has absolutely nothing to do with saving lives. What it has everything to do with is the following. The desires of some to foist their ideas on everyone else. The pro gun side only want the right. long since granted, to make their own decisions. Others would be free to decide for themselves. Can the anti gun side honestly make an equivalent claim? Both history and current events say no.

      2. Well we should boycot Citi Corp and Citi cards. I have been a Citi card holder for over 20 years in good standing. I have obtained another credit card from another provider not associated with Citi and cancelling the Citi Card. We must protect our 2nd Amendment. I suggest if you have a bank account with them, move it to another bank that backs the 2nd Amendment. I agree with Votewithdollars below. We don’t have to wait for the NRA we can start DUMP CITI CAPAIGN.

      3. Well we should boycot Citi Corp and Citi cards. I have been a Citi card holder for over 20 years in good standing. I have obtained another credit card from another provider not associated with Citi and cancelling the Citi Card. We must protect our 2nd Amendment. I suggest if you have a bank account with them, move it to another bank that backs the 2nd Amendment. I agree with Votewithdollars below. We don’t have to wait for the NRA we can start DUMP CITI CAPAIGN.

    14. Thanks to the ACLU for turning mentally ill people out of the hospitals onto our streets under the pretense that their rights had been infringed upon, we all have to eat this shit! I beleive things are going to get a little dicey boys and girls!

    15. I started shifting all of my purchases from my Citi credit card to another card today. I’ll cancel it after I’m sure all the recurring payments are transferred. Citi has been my primary card for over 20 years. Not anymore. The NRA should launch a dump Citi campaign.

      1. I did not know they take an anti-gun stance. Never shop at Worst Buy anyhow since the one time I tried to return something…major hassle. Besides, whatever they have so does Amazon, only cheaper. I would like more info on Home Depot as I shop there.

    16. May be the NRA should start their own Banking group and own credit cards. And they could also set up a Gun group E bay and PayPal and youtube for for gun rights people. This way we won’t have to put up with this BS.

      1. Oh, please, NO. Every affinity activity the NRA diversifies into turns to dreck. Let some liberty-minded capitalist(s) fill the market niche who will actually be responsive to customer feedback.

    17. Mark Young:

      Shame on you sir. You aren’t supposed to ask such troublesome question. Besides that, it might well be “privileged data”, not to be inquired about, thought about or seen by ordinary folk, who are simply supposed to do as thy are told by their self anointed betters.

    18. I may be wrong, but wouldn’t this kind of behavior constitute a basis for a civil lawsuit that Citi is violating the Lawful Commerce Act? Firearms companies or an industry association would have the pockets to test that case. And that would keep it in the news, so more and more patriots could decide to ‘#DumpCiti’.

    19. Per the aforementioned link in the article:

      “Citibank is headquartered in New York City and is a subsidiary of CitiGroup, a worldwide corporation that handles credit cards, as well as corporate and consumer banking accounts. CitiGroup includes Citibank, CitiGroup Foundation, CitiFinancial, Global Corporate & Investment Banking, Primerica Financial Services, Salomon Smith Barney, SSB Citi Asset Management Group, Travelers Property Casualty Corp., and Travelers Life & Annuity.”

    Leave a Comment 145 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *