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.

164
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
78 Comment threads
86 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
79 Comment authors
Wild BillAlanAlanMPBHeed the Call-up Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Alan
Guest
Alan

MPB:

Got a similar notice the other day. Called L.L.Bean to state that I thought it a poor choice, and that I would not likely be making future purchases from them as a result.

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

I don’t think that we will ever really know how effective our impromptu boycott of Citi Group is. I suspect that Citi Group will keep that information as a closely guarded secret.

MPB
Guest
MPB

So I get a mail today telling me that my LL Bean credit card is going to Citi. Guess I’m not keeping that POS. Bye Bye LL Bean.

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@MPB, Good for you! And good for all of us.

Alan
Guest
Alan

Wild Bill:

Thanks for the clarification of terminology.

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@Alan, I hope that you are not shocked. Military people use clear terms. We have need of it.

Alan
Guest
Alan

Wild Bill

Not at all shocked, not in any way offended . My question represented the seeking of information, which was provided, thank you.

Alan
Guest
Alan

Re the letter from Citi appearing elsewhere, their generousity in allowing people who have their credit cards to use them to make legal transactions leaves me virtually speechless.

Heed the Call-up
Guest
Heed the Call-up

WB, I don’t see your points yet on the response from Citi, but I found that last line from her quite amusing, “Consumers can continue to use their Citi credit or debit card to legally purchase a firearm.” we “can”, but we won’t….

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@Heed, I just typed it in verbatim, so that people could see the response and decide for themselves. I have never been told to FOAD in such a nice way before.
@Alan, Yes, I found that most humorous, too.

Alan
Guest
Alan

At the risk of admitting ignorance, please define FOAD. I find myself curious. Thank you.

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@Alan, Oh,… Foxtrot Oscar Alpha Delta is just an older military term meaning “no”. Ref. CEOI, specifically: F___ Off and Die.

Charles Humphrey
Guest
Charles Humphrey

You should list banks and Credit Cards that support 2nd Amendment rights

Eric_CA
Guest
Eric_CA

I concur.

E. Bryan Hoover
Guest
E. Bryan Hoover

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

Donald Seal
Guest
Donald Seal

I know we are getting off topic but your comments are just wrong . First the South had constitutional rites to leave if they chose. Second Lincon chose to preserve the Union at all cost and called for arms cause not only the war but other states like my home Virginia to join the Confederate States. If you don’t believe me read a book.

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@Donald Seal, Actually, the individual states do not have any legal Right to leave the union. Jefferson Davis in his book “The Rise and Fall of the Confederate States” makes the best defense of secession, and I encourage anyone to read it.
Three winning argument defeat the notion that a state has the authority to secede:” The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union”; Texas v. White; and the uncivil war of northern aggression between the states.

Heed the Call-up
Guest
Heed the Call-up

WB, what happens when 49 states decide to leave the union? Are you going to fight all of them, or is it only when some states decide to leave? At what point is it still not “allowed” and enforceable and at what cost?

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@Heed, You mean forty-nine states decide to leave the union at the same time. That is an interesting hypothetical, but I am not sure that an answer to that would lead to a procedure for one, or two states or a dozen states wanting to leave the union at the same time. I also think that several of the states are already refusing to follow the U.S. Constitution, and are in rebellion, but just have not declared it out loud. Raw power, passive resistance, maybe something in between or a combination of things. I think, though, that if the United… Read more »

E. Bryan Hoover
Guest
E. Bryan Hoover

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… Read more »

Heed the Call-up
Guest
Heed the Call-up

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?

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@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… Read more »

E. Bryan Hoover
Guest
E. Bryan Hoover

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.

Heed the Call-up
Guest
Heed the Call-up

EBH, the USA does not own states, nor are states properties nor territories of the USA.

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@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… Read more »

E. Bryan Hoover
Guest
E. Bryan Hoover

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

Heed the Call-up
Guest
Heed the Call-up

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.

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

Heed, wait… are you saying that a state can leave the union?

Heed the Call-up
Guest
Heed the Call-up

Yes, that is my point.

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@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… Read more »

Oldvet
Guest
Oldvet

@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 .

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@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.

Alan
Guest
Alan

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… Read more »

Alan
Guest
Alan

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.

Oldvet
Guest
Oldvet

@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 .

E. Bryan Hoover
Guest
E. Bryan Hoover

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… Read more »

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@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.

Alan
Guest
Alan

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.

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@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.

Alan
Guest
Alan

Wild Bill:

Putting it bluntly, and no criticism of you is intended, why the hell are all these extraneous posts, non germane to the title subject appearing? If some feel that my question is a dumb question, perhaps it is. Never the less, the question stands.

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@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… Read more »

Trumped
Guest
Trumped

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… Read more »

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

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

Trumped
Guest
Trumped

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… Read more »

Michael
Guest
Michael

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… Read more »

Michael
Guest
Michael

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.

BJI
Guest
BJI

Do you STILL own slaves, Mike?

Trumped
Guest
Trumped

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.

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

Come on BJI, a mere recitation of history does not mean one wants to own slaves.

Eric_CA
Guest
Eric_CA

In the LA Times today an article “L.A. boycott of NRA-linked firms urged” by Emily Alpert Reyes.

Here’s the link:

https://www.pressreader.com/usa/los-angeles-times/20180329/281792809580998

Alan
Guest
Alan

how is the hoped for boycott going?

trumped
Guest
trumped

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?

Alan
Guest
Alan

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.

Manuel
Guest
Manuel

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… Read more »

Don
Guest
Don

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.

JoeUSooner
Guest
JoeUSooner

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… Read more »

Heed the Call-up
Guest
Heed the Call-up

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,… Read more »

Roger J
Guest
Roger J

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… Read more »

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@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… Read more »

JoeUSooner
Guest
JoeUSooner

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.

Oldvet
Guest
Oldvet

@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 !!

Oldvet
Guest
Oldvet

@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?

Sara Swanson
Guest
Sara Swanson

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.

trumped
Guest
trumped

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

Mark Young
Guest
Mark Young

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… Read more »

Alan
Guest
Alan

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.

Julia
Guest
Julia

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.

Julia
Guest
Julia

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.

Larry Ring
Guest
Larry Ring

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!

VoteWithDollars
Guest
VoteWithDollars

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.

William
Guest
William

I just closed my Home Depot and Best Buy credit cards.

Craig
Guest
Craig

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.

Dan Schwager
Guest
Dan Schwager

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.

Henry
Guest
Henry

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.

Alan
Guest
Alan

Wild Bill

Might work.

Alan
Guest
Alan

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.

rev_dave
Guest
rev_dave

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’.

Eric_CA
Guest
Eric_CA

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.”

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@Eric CA, New York City?! Get a rope! I could not help myself. How are you doing, hombre!

Eric_CA
Guest
Eric_CA

Good, might ss sell boycott New York.