Citigroup Puts Gun Control Hammer on Business Partners
Ah, gun control..
Citi is the first firm on Wall Street to take a position in the gun control divide. Anyone who has a Citigroup backed credit card or is associated with Citi in any professional/business manner now has restrictions on what they can and cannot buy. More below..
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.
[Photo: Bloomberg]The rules, which the company described as "common-sense measures," echo similar restrictions established by some major retailers, like Walmart. But they also represent the boldest such move to emerge from the banking sector.
For better or worse? What does this one day lead to?
Fuck Citi. People are going to do whatever they want with their guns regardless - this is a pussy move and I don't think any other banks are gonna mess with this.
Popular opinion on guns is shifting dramatically. It’s really a play for Milleniel clients. It’s not politically but in their view good business.
No, it's entirely political. The just-above-average-intelligence twerps in Citi's corporate office dreamed this up. One step closer to a "social credit" system rather than a monetary system. Anyone who thinks this is a positive development probably breathes manually.
Not sure why you got MS for your comment. Everything you said is on point.
Playing the dick-waving politics game almost invariably ends poorly for companies that employ people stupid enough to participate in it.
^ Agreed, no surprise that it's Citi either.
I feel like Citi has always been a little more risk-taking and out there compared to other banks.
Probably explains this.
What is the big deal? Corporations have the right to do what they want and consumers have the right to use or not use their service/product. This is how capitalism works. This is much better intervention than government regulation.
I know, right!!! But of course that would assume we live in a perfectly capitalist country.
I mean...could you imagine how bad the following situation would be: - corporate management of a F500 drives the business into the ground, - then claims that this business is so important to the country's economy that they simply cannot fail (despite their incredibly shitty financial position) so they take BILLIONS in TAXPAYER dollars to fund their losses so they can stay in operation, - 10 years later, that business (which was financially propped up by taxpayers) used their incredible influence to make life more difficult for some taxpayers (the same taxpayers that bailed them out 10 years ago) in an effort to makes a political statement.
Yeah, no. There's no problem with that! Also, who's to say that if this political stunt backfires and Citi suffers losses as a result, the taxpayers (both gun advocates and gun control advocate) won't AGAIN be bailing them out?
Does capitalism work where you get bailed out to the tune of $20-40 billion by the tax payer and then not even a decade later you start enacting politically-motivated attacks on businesses? If we are talking about capitalism, Citigroup wouldn't exist today.
If we're talking about capitalism, no business would exist, because we've never had a true capitalist society. There is always state intervention. Always.
Anyway I'm not sure how anyone objects to this. Citi made a decision. That is their prerogative, and we'll see if it pays off. Who cares if it's profitable or not? Maybe it will be.
Nobody is arguing the legality of this. Just because someone can micromanage a customer’s purchases doesn’t mean they should.
LOL no, not anymore. This has not been the case for at least a few years since that fucking douchebag gay couple sued the cake baker.
While I'd generally agree with that statement, you have to remember that the bank in question is Citi, a BB, meaning that they get plenty of unfair benefits from the government that a normal business that wouldn't be involved with the government would have, and as such, it's not as simple as "they're a private corporation and can do whatever they want."
If it was some smaller bank with limited to no influence over the government or the government over them, I'm right there with you.
edit: meant to reply to hockey34
I just figure anyone pro-gun control (the commonly debated aspects I hear anyway), has absolutely no idea how most of America functions. I feel bad for all the people working for Citi that just got alienated, and have to explain this rubbish to the customers they worked hard to get.
Out of curiosity, would you mind elaborating a bit as to what you mean? Do you have an issue with all 3 items (banning bump stocks, requiring background checks and being 21+ to purchase)? At least of a few of these items are starting to get bipartisan support, although maybe that wasn't the case a few years ago.
Ut officia nulla facilis. Dicta soluta deleniti qui cumque veritatis quis sit. In numquam omnis accusantium voluptatum vitae. Et nulla labore vel eos quae et consequatur. Tempora repellat facere culpa aut et et quos. Enim repudiandae dolorem ut atque suscipit aut sit.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...