The great guns debate: Fighting back
Bank of America apparently doesn't like dealing with firearms makers. So should individuals and businesses that cherish Second Amendment rights do their banking elsewhere?
In late December, Joe Sirochman, owner of American Spirit Arms in Scottsdale, Ariz., says he wrote on the company's official Facebook page that after a 500-percent surge in online business, Bank of America decided to hold its resulting e-commerce deposits for further review. For three weeks.
He wrote that after many hours on the phone, a Bank of America manager told him: “We believe you should not be selling guns and parts on the Internet.” Angered, Mr. Sirochman replied that the company is properly licensed and law-abiding and the bank has no right to “make up their own new rules and regs.”
Bank of America didn't respond to our request for comment. But it did tell The Huffington Post that the deposit freeze was a review done routinely for “(a)ny spike in transaction volumes ... .”
The website reports that “Bank of America has said in the past that it doesn't have a policy against working with gun businesses” — but that's hard to take on face value, considering the bank faced similar accusations last spring, in relation to firearms maker McMillan Group International.
Sirochman retrieved most of American Spirit's deposits and now is dealing with another bank. Whether he ran afoul of Bank of America policy or one rogue manger, gun-rights supporters should realize they are not unarmed in what's becoming a pitched battle.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Benchmarking questions: Fueling perversion
- U.N. Watch: Climate games
- Shenango shakedown: Public money at risk
- Sunday pops
- Jesse White’s chutzpah
- The Obama foreign policy ‘model’ imperils the world.
- Saturday essay: The thumb itches
- Obama & Wolf: Taxers and spenders
- Piercing the media’s shield: Muzzles & slopes
- Public pension ‘ka-boom’