• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

TD BANK JOINS FORCES WITH ANTI GUNNERS

Powderhorn

NES Member
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
40
Likes
17
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
HELLO ALL JUST THOUGHT SOME OF YOU WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THAT TD BANK DOES NOT SUPPORT THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND HAS CONTACTED US HERE AT THE POWDERHORN TO SAY THAT DUE TO OUR INVOLVEMENT IN FIREARMS SALES WE AS A BUSINESS ARE NO LONGER WELCOME TO HAVE AN ACCOUNT AT THEIR BANK. THEY CLASSIFY US IN THE SAME GREY AREA AS THE LOCAL WEED SHOPS SPROUTING UP ON CAPE. WELL WE HAVE SINCE FOUND A BANK THAT DOES SUPPORT THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND HAVE MOVED OUR BUSINESS THEIR. THANKS FOR LISTENING AND I HOPE THAT SOME OF YOU ALSO TAKE YOUR BUSINESS ELSEWHERE AWAY FROM THOSE WHO DO NOT SUPPORT OUR SECOND AMENDMENT.


THANKS AND HAVE A GREAT DAY
POWDERHORN OUTFITTERS
 
This is just the beginning.

Keep this up and someone will have their "line in the sand" crossed. Take away a mans way of supporting himself and his family even though no laws were broken and you will encounter someone with nothing left to lose and ready to make those who took it away die for it.

I hope that man has the right information on who took it away (Obama and Holder) when he seeks vengeance.
 
Is this true?! TD Bank and Chase. I don't use them but if I did I'd be gone!

This is not because Chase and TD are anti per se. It is because they fear the government more than the consumer backlash.

This is straight up, 100% tyranny. The feds who are doing this need to be shown in no uncertain terms that this tyranny will not be tolerated anymore.

There is only one way to show them it will not be tolerated. It doesn't involve the courts either.
 
gotta love that, a federally licensed business owner who is involved in the sale of an object that is protected by the constitution....i wonder if this can be argued as discrimination?

maybe not, i don't understand the law exactly on this point....

does a business reserve the right to refuse to provide services to a certain type of business owner for any reason? For example, if a bank decides they don't want to do business with a sex toy manufacturing company, would this be legal? and along the same lines?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
 
gotta love that, a federally licensed business owner who is involved in the sale of an object that is protected by the constitution....i wonder if this can be argued as discrimination?

maybe not, i don't understand the law exactly on this point....

does a business reserve the right to refuse to provide services to a certain type of business owner for any reason? For example, if a bank decides they don't want to do business with a sex toy manufacturing company, would this be legal? and along the same lines?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

Your point is noted on free business but this is being done via .gov coercion
 
Your point is noted on free business but this is being done via .gov coercion

yes, after one of the posts above, i started reading about Operation Choke Point....you are absolutely right this is government coercion.

They are outwardly interfering with free business and our entire way of life...what a depressing thought

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
 
gotta love that, a federally licensed business owner who is involved in the sale of an object that is protected by the constitution....i wonder if this can be argued as discrimination?

maybe not, i don't understand the law exactly on this point....

does a business reserve the right to refuse to provide services to a certain type of business owner for any reason? For example, if a bank decides they don't want to do business with a sex toy manufacturing company, would this be legal? and along the same lines?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

A business can refuse to do business with another business if they want. Completely legal.

The difference in this case is we have the Federal Government (backed by thugs pointing guns at you), telling one business (banks) you better not do business with anyone who sells guns, porn, or drug paraphernalia.
 
Bank of America is also anti-gun, per reports that came out last year. So is GE financial.


What I don't understand is why anyone is still banking with any of the mega-banks after they screwed us over in 2008?

Want to make a difference, vote with your dollars and go local.
 
Bank of America is also anti-gun, per reports that came out last year. So is GE financial.


What I don't understand is why anyone is still banking with any of the mega-banks after they screwed us over in 2008?

Want to make a difference, vote with your dollars and go local.

Operation "Choke Point" has been going on since 2011. While it may in fact be true that BoA and GE Financial are anti-gun, the Feds have been coercing them to be anti-gun (whether they want to be anti or not) since at least 2011.

Once the "big players" have been "threatened into compliance" then Obama and Holder will be able to start going after the smaller players.

Like I said in a post above, this is just the beginning.
 
I don't see how you can blame anyone but TD bank for this. operation choke point while absolutely preposterous, does not require any bank to stop service to firearms dealers, they are doing this willingly
 
I don't see how you can blame anyone but TD bank for this. operation choke point while absolutely preposterous, does not require any bank to stop service to firearms dealers, they are doing this willingly

When someone twists your arm to gain your cooperation, are you really cooperating willingly ???
 
I was told they charge $7 at TD bank to cash a check if you have no account with them. Wouldn't THAT be more similar to the things operation choke point was aimed at?

- - - Updated - - -

When someone twists your arm to gain your cooperation, are you really cooperating willingly ???

maybe I am just not familiar enough with operation choke point, how is the executive branch twisting the banks arms?

honest question here
 
I don't see how you can blame anyone but TD bank for this. operation choke point while absolutely preposterous, does not require any bank to stop service to firearms dealers, they are doing this willingly

It doesn't require it per se. But let me ask you this, if the Mass DOR suddenly decided they didn't like what one of your clients (Client A) sold and said to your business: "We will send subpoenas, civil investigative demands, and other burdensome and costly legal demands regarding all the business Client A does with you."

How are you going to respond?

Your choice is to keep your client and suddenly have to spend oodles of money complying with the government's demands, or drop that client thus negating the need to comply. Keep in mind if you keep the client but don't comply they then go after your business directly and if you make a mistake while complying, the government treats it as "willful non-compliance" and goes after you as if you never complied anyway.

So in effect, it does require banks withdraw service to firearms dealers.

In Alfred Hitchcock’s movie classic “Dial M for Murder,” the crime at the center of the plot is hatched on a phone call. A half-century later, the universal availability of mobile devices and communications networks means that criminal acts are even more frequently plotted and carried out using electronic means. In investigating such crimes, does law enforcement hold responsible those companies that merely operate communications networks? Of course not. And yet that is exactly what the Department of Justice and other federal agencies are doing as they pursue disfavored – but legal – categories of merchants by targeting our nation’s payments systems.

The enforcement program has a name – “Operation Chokepoint” – and as more details of the program become public, more concerns are raised. The “chokepoint” in this operation is the nation’s payments infrastructure, the means by which merchants process nearly $5 trillion in consumer purchases in the U.S. each year. Federal law enforcers are targeting merchant categories like payday lenders, ammunition and tobacco sales, and telemarketers – but not merely by pursuing those merchants directly. Rather, Operation Chokepoint is flooding payments companies that provide processing service to those industries with subpoenas, civil investigative demands, and other burdensome and costly legal demands.

The theory behind this enforcement program has superficial logic: increase the legal and compliance costs of serving certain disfavored merchant categories, and payments companies will simply stop providing service to such merchants. And it’s working – payments companies across the country are cutting off service to categories of merchants that – although providing a legal service – are creating the potential for significant financial and reputational harm as law enforcement publicizes its activities. Thus far, payday lenders have been the most frequent target. Whatever the merits of payday lending – and there are valid arguments on both sides –it is legal in 36 states. And if payday lenders are today’s target– what category will be next and who makes that decision?

If you’re thinking this is harmful to the flow of commerce, you’re right.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-b...ation-choke-point-harmful-to-flow-of-commerce

- - - Updated - - -

maybe I am just not familiar enough with operation choke point, how is the executive branch twisting the banks arms?

honest question here

See above.
 
It doesn't require it per se. But let me ask you this, if the Mass DOR suddenly decided they didn't like what one of your clients (Client A) sold and said to your business: "We will send subpoenas, civil investigative demands, and other burdensome and costly legal demands regarding all the business Client A does with you."

How are you going to respond?

Your choice is to keep your client and suddenly have to spend oodles of money complying with the government's demands, or drop that client thus negating the need to comply. Keep in mind if you keep the client but don't comply they then go after your business directly and if you make a mistake while complying, the government treats it as "willful non-compliance" and goes after you as if you never complied anyway.

So in effect, it does require banks withdraw service to firearms dealers.



http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-b...ation-choke-point-harmful-to-flow-of-commerce

- - - Updated - - -



See above.

thanks, thats the first one I had read that mentioned the targeting of anything other than payday lenders and other financial based businesses
 
HELLO ALL JUST THOUGHT SOME OF YOU WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THAT TD BANK DOES NOT SUPPORT THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND HAS CONTACTED US HERE AT THE POWDERHORN TO SAY THAT DUE TO OUR INVOLVEMENT IN FIREARMS SALES WE AS A BUSINESS ARE NO LONGER WELCOME TO HAVE AN ACCOUNT AT THEIR BANK. THEY CLASSIFY US IN THE SAME GREY AREA AS THE LOCAL WEED SHOPS SPROUTING UP ON CAPE. WELL WE HAVE SINCE FOUND A BANK THAT DOES SUPPORT THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND HAVE MOVED OUR BUSINESS THEIR. THANKS FOR LISTENING AND I HOPE THAT SOME OF YOU ALSO TAKE YOUR BUSINESS ELSEWHERE AWAY FROM THOSE WHO DO NOT SUPPORT OUR SECOND AMENDMENT.


THANKS AND HAVE A GREAT DAY
POWDERHORN OUTFITTERS

http://email.about.com/od/netiquettetips/qt/Writing-In-All-Caps-Is-Like-Shouting.htm
 
Back
Top Bottom