Thank goodness I have never banked with Citigroup nor any of the other "too big to fail." Syas a lot about AmeriKa in my book. Too little too late.
2
Good show! Strong work! As a former Marine officer who has served in three wars, they is absolutely no justification for purchasing military long rifles for civilian citizenry. Objections will come from those who feel the need to demonstrate "manliness" by dressing up in camo utilities and run around the woods shooting their AK-47's or AR-15's with their 30-round magazines. Sad.
6
It's about time adults begin to act as adults. This is a good first step but we need to eliminate assault weapons altogether. Oregon voters will have the chance to do so next November. Will other states follow?
2
Citigroup has really jumped into the thick of it. If a bakery has to sell to a gay couple, does a bank have to provide loans to anyone credit worthy? You would think so.
Look for this to end up in the courts, but it does make a huge statement: a for profit corporation with much to lose has taken a stand that our Congress is too cowardly and shameless to do.
Assault weapons, bump stocks and high capacity magazines are a scourge. Whatever it takes to keep saying so is of benefit to us. Citigroup may lose this on a legal front, but the court of public opinion answers to different principles. Weapons of these types will be banned. At some point a next generation of citizens will finally not stand for it. The question is how many will have to die before that.
6
To the commenters expressing concern that a private company is daring to try screening businesses they interact with, not sure I follow.
1. Companies, especially banks, regularly refuse to take on customers with high liabilities. A bank doesn't have to give a loan to a person with high risk of default. Similarly, they don't have to take on a business customer that's involved in unsavory or risky behavior. This is just another way of limiting risk on the bank's part. Why shouldn't they only offer services to gun sellers that are at minimum doing background checks?
2. Every right has limitations. In many cases, the limitation is that one person's rights not infringe on the health and well being of another. In this case, why should a person's right to bear arms when they are mentally ill or too young to drink, or their desire to shoot a target at inhuman speeds, infringe on everyone else's right not to get killed in a mass shooting? I'm not sure how people are weighing the two options and deciding mass shootings are acceptable side effects of having easy access (they'd still have regular access!) to guns.
No, I don't think Citigroup is making this decision purely out of the goodness of their hearts. But if the government is going to deafen itself to the increasingly loud majority pleading for sensible gun regulations, at least corporations have the sense to react to public opinion
4
why should a person's right not to get killed in a mass shooting infringe on another person's right to self-defense?
1
Because the person wanting self-defense can defend themselves with something other than a gun fitted with bump stock and high-capacity magazine
1
the odds of a person being in a mass shooting are magnitudes smaller than being individually assaulted.
I wonder if the same progressives who cheer on Citi right now were sad when Citi paid a billion dollar fine for violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. I suspect this was a business plan, not a moral statement.
http://www.citigroup.com/citi/news/2015/150520a.htm
1
Well I guess I am done with CITI
2
Old enough to put a gun in their hands to defend their country but not old enough to buy a gun and defend to their loved ones.
3
And that's wrong too. No one under 21 should be required to (volunteer for) military.
1
but federal lawmakers have taken limited action, and President Trump quickly abandoned a promise to pursue gun control measures, instead promoting proposals backed by the National Rifle Association to arm teachers.
why? because they're spineless weasels in the pockets of the gun lobby and the almost universally whiny, paranoid assault weapons owners. from what I see most of these assault weapons owners should be on meds as they have serious delusions of both grandeur (the laughably good-guy-with-a-gun 8 y/o boy who watches too much tv fantasy) and paranoia (like 95% of "nra "channel"- thats why they call it programming; of their fervent imaginations.
but the ones sadly with real power, congress, have been played like cheap violins by the gun lobby who take these pathetic creatures who exist at the intersection of vanity and fecklessness, putting their pathological need to see their names and faces everywhere (remind you of anyone else?) ahead of whats right and for gods sakes whats safe and morally correct for the children of this country.
its a sad day when the supposed adults in this country have abdicated their responsibility and have to be lead by teenagers. what a pathetic generation of weak cowards those manipulated by the gun lobby (and congress) are.
1
I cannot claim to have all the answers, but when a company says that “succumbing to political pressure to do what is expedient” would fly “in the face of our fiduciary responsibility as stewards of the company for the benefit of shareholders,” is sickening. What happened to the benefit of human life and the right to live without the worry of being shot to death by some nut job with an assault rifle? The N.R.A. doesn’t care one way or the other about the rights of citizens, it only cares about shareholder profits and large corporate salaries. The moment that the gun toting Americans who are always freaking out about having all their guns taken away realize this maybe they will get it through their thick skulls that liberals do not have any interest in banning all firearms or taking away their precious weapons. I am glad that Citigroup, a banking organization that is filled with its own corruption and shady business practices, at least had some sense in this issue.
2
I can certainly understand why the .01% would not want firearms in the hands of the commoners.
2
The sad irony is that moral-less banks and businesses are the only ones who will take on the merchants of death.
2
Hmm you're a bank and you are going to restrict my rights as to what I can buy with my credit card? LOL I don't think so! Not your business to do so!
Cancelling credit card account and I will take my business elsewhere I can't do business with a bank that acts like it's run by communist dictators!
1
So Citigroup has decided to restrict what legal businesses can do if they want to do business with Citigroup? Legalities of this aside, has Citigroup forgotten that the money they use to fund their business is at its core not theirs? It belongs to all their depositors, who can move those funds as they desire. I don't have any business with Citigroup but if I did I would be looking for another partner.
As far as the legal side of this goes, while not a lawyer, it seems like it would be a case of all or nothing.
Deciding what companies are being properly ethical in their legal business practices I'd pretty galling coming from an institution that had to be bailed out by funds supplied by people who do business with those companies Citigroup is trying to restrict.
Color me cynical, but what we are seeing is a corporation betting on a turning tide. Citigroup sees liability for gun violence as a greater future expense than the amount of revenue they will generate without the policy.
Citigroup sees court costs like the tobacco industry faced in our future.
I hope they are right. But I have to say that I worry when national policy is formulated by large corporations and civil courts. That right there is a reason to cut Congressional pay.
6
It's great to see the party of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders embracing the power of Wall Street and letting Citigroup do their legislative heavy lifting.
Why break up the Big Banks when they can be co-opted for a good cause? Today, anyway. Sufficient unto the day...
Citigroup, Thank you for showing leadership, compassion and common sense.
9
Fact 1. Citi leadership architected the law that enabled the crash of 2008. Fact 2 this will have little impact and borders on tortious interference.
Oh, the irony. It's a bank doing the right thing. Maybe our government should take notes.
9
Folks can commend or criticize. Anyone who thinks is about morals or taking a stand, is dead wrong.
Citi is protecting themselves against potential legal liabilities.
1
Not really - the NRA has forced legislation that resolves anyone involved in the manufacture or sale of guns from any lawsuits. Just like the horrible legislation that bans any study of guns or gun violence.
Thanks, was not aware. Does that apply to civil cases too?
Why should a gun maker be liable for someone who breaks the anymore than a car company is liable for they way their products are used?
Almost brings a tear to one's eye, as a criminal banking entity (look it up folks) now wants to impose moralistic sanction on legitimate business. Admit it Citi, you don't make any money from the firearms industry, otherwise this wouldn't happen. Boo hoo.
2
Thank you, Citi.
6
And, yet, if I had quoted some Bozo at Fox News you would have been grateful for a quality, reliable source.
About time! Should be stronger measures.
4
Citigroup considers 18-21 to be second class citizens.
Since they can be sent off to war, but can't even drink I guess they are 2nd class citizens in more important ways than owning a specific type of gun.
6
"Members of its corporate citizenship group... will check in regularly on partners’ gun-selling procedures, the company said."
How will this be done? Access to BATF and FBI databases? Access to purchasers personal info? Has the secret police state arrived? Or is this another meaningless gesture to the Left?
It’s a sad day in America when a bank exhibits more moral fortitude than our Congress.
19
Violating citizens 2nd amendment rights is now considered moral fortitude? LOL... Really? Pretty sure laws are there for a reason. When you're a bank and you start writing your own rules that violate peoples 2nd amendment rights, that's when things really start to go off the rails. Just another class action lawsuit in the making! Amazing how Citigroup is setting themselves up for failure and a huge loss on a class action lawsuit settlement. Why would anyone invest in a company making ignorant decisions like this? Civil rights Attorney's are already foaming at the mouth over this one!
1
Why would these arbitrary restrictions imposed by private companies like Youtube and Citibank not be violations of the constitutional rights of those who are prevented from conducting legal, lawful business transactions?
5
Constitutional rights (1st Amendment etc.) generally only protect you against government action, not private action. Which is why your (private) employer can fire you over what you say. And Citi has rights too: freedom of association.
They can decide whom to to business with, as long as not on grounds of race, religion, sex, disability, etc. Besides, he who has he gold makes the rules.
6
Every constitutional right has limitations imposed on it. The right to bear arms doesn't mean the right to bear any arm you choose, other considerations (like that you're insane) notwithstanding.
4
A corporation doesn't have a Constitutional right that is exercised on an individual basis, like the fifth amendment. This isn't really about freedom of association. They are not limiting who they associate with. They are arbitrarily imposing limitations on a person's or a company's exercise of a Constitutional right as a deliberate attempt to prevent the exercise of that constitutional right, in the public sphere.
Citibank has already demonstrated that they have no regard for consumer banking laws and regulations so it's no surprise they have no regard for people's Constitutional rights.
Once the banks are allowed to dictate what people can buy and sell, they pretty much run this place . . . As if they don’t already. Let’s just hope gay wedding cakes don’t fall out of favor with Citigroup next week, regardless of what the law says about who has to sell them.
3
I've just cut up my Citi credit card.
If Citi every bought my mortgage I would refinance, though it would cost me.
But as Doe might suggest, it's time to let the constitution breathe and break up - or at least not rescue as the Fed did in 2009 - these large, monopolistic entities. Citi doesn't monopolize the entire banking terrain, but it is one of a few that could dictate what we do.
Break up Google, Facebook, Amazon (the most dangerous) and any other giant market cap, eyeball snatching, blood sucking entity.
4
Thank you
I know I made a good decision when I started banking with you in 1973. I will be with you until my judgement day.
Keep up the good work.
8
The headline should be "Citibank says NO to college women seeking effective self-defense."
3
College women, or anyone for that matter, can take judo/karate/etc classes.
4
Wheel chair Karate classes.
1
Yeah those two will stop a bullet right? Delusional thinking at best!
News flash... criminals don't follow the law and they don't buy their guns at stores!
Why is this not at the top of the page? More publicity would embolden other Financial firms to follow suit with this important initiative.
15
What’s next? Corporations dictating how much fuel, food, etc a citizen can buy a month? They will probably get tied up in several lawsuits as well as lose some business.
If this was a corporation defying federal laws in favor of conservative principals Obama would have had the ATF, IRS, and FBI raid them.
Seems Progressives violating Federal law because of their “so called principles” is a popular thing these days.
Progressives better be careful. This is the exact thing they opposed 30-40 yrs ago when “good ole boys” ran things. Turning a blind eye, back room deals, laws broken to support their cause, etc.
5
What federal law is CitiBank defying?
4
The Bill of Rights & The 2nd Amendment...
1
Funny you should bring up breaking laws; frankly, it was people breaking laws that allowed the civil rights movement to challenge discriminatory laws that the "good ole boys" enacted in order to prevent voting, encourage segregation, and infringe on many people's rights. Laws change as do our interpretation of them.
PS: Corporations already dictate how much fuel/food a citizen can buy, it's called pricing. If the pricing is ever unreasonable, corporations go out of business. Just as if corporations set any unreasonable restrictions, they will go out of business. Let's see if Citigroup goes out of business.
1
Not surprising. Corbatt doesn't have a coherent vision for growth or business, but under his leadership Citi publishes two releases a day on every looney left topic under the sun. They spend millions on politics, hire every has-been Democrat who wants a cushy no-show job, and have an opinion on everything except how they are going to recover the billions they lost for their shareholders and their customers during the great recession.
I use to own a few shares in this Bank. Got tired of waiting and just dumped them.
I wonder if Citigroup will still employ armed guards to protect their money.
2
Not if the guards are under 21 and using bump stocks. But you already knew the answer to your question, didn't you.
7
What an ignorant comment! The law is 18 and bump stocks are still legal.
This is a form of vigilantism.
Everyone should be dismayed at this. In America, everyone's money is supposed to be the same shade of green, whether you're black, white, Jew, Protestant, Musim, Catholic, atheist, gay or straight. No longer: private corporations can now decide that legal behavior is something that they will not allow you to engage in without going through extra onerous hoops. Today it was Citi. Earlier this week it was YouTube and Google.
Maybe tomorrow your car insurance will be pulled if you've ever transported a firearm in your vehicle. Maybe your homeowner's policy won't get issued unless you renounce your Constitutional right to private property (after all, why risk litigating flood insurance or eminent domain). This is not a road we should want to go down. Period.
Laws are made by the people's duly elected representatives serving in government, not by corporate activists.
6
If corporations are “people”, then they have a right to vote with their feet. Citi has voted with their feet. People, and companies, are not forced to use Citi’s services, as they can vote with their feet and go elsewhere too.
2
Citibank is a business, not a branch of the government. They don't have any coercive power over you. If you don't like their policies, you can take your business elsewhere. On the other hand, what was your opinion of the Georgia government punishing Delta for terminating preferential deals for NRA members? Let me guess...
2
"Laws are made by the people's duly elected representatives serving in government, not by corporate activists."
Unfortunately, corporations have already bought the votes of many of our "duly elected representatives". A majority of Americans support stronger gun laws. If our representatives are ignoring the will of the people because they're getting campaign contributions from the gun industry, then the system is broken. I support what Citigroup and others are doing. It's a shame that congress is afraid to do the same.
2
This still budding movement to control gun ownership in the United States, is gaining traction.
The holdouts in Congress, and throughout government, will soon discover that banks and other funding sources for elections, may begin targeting them not just individually, but perhaps publicly take the position that superpaks they use for political contributions will no longer donate to any political party which does not agree with reasonable measures to control gun ownership.
These reasonable measures are now well known to nearly everyone, amd except for the armed forces, and police departments, they should include banning all machine gun sales, banning bump stocks, eliminating sale of magazines with more than 6 shells, banning sale of silencers, require all guns be registered in a State and Federal database, require background checks, to include criminal background checking, on all prospective gun purchasers, and last but not least require that registration and background checks be annually renewed.
No reasonable citizen should have any issue with the foregoing, and those who do are mired in disinformation and deliberate wrongful interpretation of the intent of our Founding Fathers nearly 300 years ago, when their concerns centered around the reality that the still new independent United States was still without a full fledged national army that could resist foreign attempts to again subjugate its people.
This movement to institute gun ownership regulations is not going away.
12
With over 1/2 of the households in the US owning guns, I suspect that the progressives will pay a very high price at mid-term elections.
1
I'm a reasonable citizen, and I have an issue with nearly all of those. In any case, when you follow up with your draconian measures with "a wrongful interpretation of the intent of our Founding Fathers," you forfeit any pretense of acting in good faith. The only "wrongful interpretation" is the fantasy that the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect from the government the right of government militias to own guns.
Actually, according to the Pew Research group, in 2017 only 3 in 10 Americans reported owning a gun.
2
America has reached a sad, sad state indeed when Wall Street bankers are willing to forego profits to take a moral path before Republicans are willing to give up corrupt contributions from the N.R.A. (which, not coincidentally, are largely provided by Russia).
Once a modern Republican, never again a loyal American or decent human being.
9
The NRA gave a total of $1 million combined last year. and that was divided among a lot of candidates both nationally and locally. Do you really think that the NRA can get off buying politicians so cheaply yet Citibank's $5 million in lobbying does't matter? At least try to do a little research before making a fool out of yourself.
I feel like all these people commending this havent actually thought much about it.
Do people not realize that the US sends 18-21 year olds into war with guns? Do people not realize that 18 is a legal adult? It's never made sense why we declare someone a legal adult yet you cant buy cigarettes (California) or alcohol.
Why would a legal adult not be allowed to buy a gun, it makes no rational sense.
I for one do not need a Citi card so I'll just delete my account that I have with them. I dont own a gun but putting forth such ridiculous rules on businesses shows an utter lack of intelligence on behalf of the CEO.
7
Please, continue. These same 18 year olds that we do not trust to drink, smoke, or now own a firearm we trust to vote. Voting has far more and longer lasting impact on society than any of these other activities. Why do we think that an 18 year old's political judgement is better than his or her judgement in other aspects of life?
1
Oh, grow up, Yes, my generation fought to lower the voting age to 18 since we politicians were sending us to war without a voice.
However, Citibank is a private entity, not a governmental one. They can do whatever they want.
Therein lies the difference. You're welcome for the enlightenment.
In an earlier article on this topic the Times notes the prospect of age discrimination lawsuits. At the Federal level the 18 to 21 crew is not a protected class (unlike, e.g., religious or ethnic groups).
But NY state specifically prohibits age discrimination, and not just in employment. Examples at the state website include refusing to lend or rent to youngsters (presumably, with an otherwise acceptable profile).
So let's hold the applause until this seemingly illegal decision by Citi is tested in court. (IIRC a young man is already suing Dicks Sporting Goods in Oregon.)
5
It should be alarming to everyone that corporations are taking such actions that seek to limit the constitutional rights of anyone. If you don't like the second amendment, try to repeal it. We are suppose to be a republic and this smacks of fascism.
This will do nothing in the long run. If one wants a new firearm, 30 round magazine or anything else I am sure one can get it with cash, money order or bitcoin.
6
Where exactly does the Second Amendment mention magazine capacity?
It says that the right "shall not be infringed." That doesn't mean that no regulations are permissible, but it also doesn't mean that ANY regulation that isn't explicitly prohibited (none of them are, including magazine capacity) IS permissible. Restricts on enumerated Constitutional rights must satisfy strict scrutiny, meaning that the law is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. To prove this, the government needs to put forth evidence. There is ZERO evidence that limiting magazine capacity reduces the number of victims or serves any other state interest; therefore, the law does not satisfy strict scrutiny.
Same place the First Amendment lists specifically which religions the government can't interfere with.
As more and more corporations take the responsibility for gun control, I see that this government will not help to protect its citizens, but perhaps the much-maligned corporate community will step up and actually do something about guns.
5
Gun owners are usually very low profile, wanting to not stir up any such conflicts, however, if the past is any indication, they have a very long memory. Expect some of the anti-civil rights companies to be gone I a few years.
1
Nonsense. Many more of us will give them our business.
2
Trying to monitor gun purchases at the payment processing level is ominous sign. Once banks can do this, will they decline the charges? What if paid with a debit card? Will depositors need to "transitioned their business" if they run afoul of social policy de jour? Big banks now control 40% of US deposits thanks to Dodd-Frank.
Liberal cheering this should swap buying a gun with the morning after pill. Plenty of pro-lifers would be fine restricting these at the payment level. A conservative Christian could be the next Citigroup CEO.
Guns law have been codified by the electorate. Buying and selling guns is legal. This has not changed because there hasn't been sufficient voter will. It has nothing to do with the NRA. They are a lobbying group, not voters.
Corporate America dictating policy at the consumer level is dangerous; especially though banking. If this is allowed corporate masters will take on a whole new meaning.
7
This continues the trend of powerful corporations doing what Congress refuses to do. Address the problem. Investing in clean energy, enforcing responsible gun sales, exploring other ways of delivering health care, these are all a good start. The people that spend our tax money, and then some, cannot or will not do what is needed. The people we willingly give money to, merchants and banks, seem more than willing to help out. We need safe schools. The GOP opposes all effective measures, at least let Citigroup do their part.
6
When Citi bank and such tyrants start to tell you what you can say or who you can vote for, remember that without 2A all of your other rights are in danger.
1
The Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to own guns, yet it has repeatedly refused to say that such a right precludes laws that regulate gun ownership, impose conditions on gun sales, or ban certain styles of weapons.
We are governed be duly elected representatives of the people, not by the ten richest men in town. You do not want to return to that model.
To all you people who think this is a great thing, what are you going to do if they decide to restrict fast food purchases or book purchases or whatever they feel like you should not have because it may be too dangerous? This is censorship in its purest form. You want gun control, but you have no idea what you are asking for. You say that citizens do not need weapons that look like military, look like, but do not behave like them. You are using emotions to allow the government to rule your life. I encourage each and everyone of you to go back and read history. Look at the Revolutionary War and one of the main reasons it started. If the citizens of this great nation are disarmed, it will only be a matter of time before the US Government decides that the Constitution should also go. This is not to belittle the deaths that were caused by those who are determined to cause as much chaos and destruction as possible. I too do not want guns or any kind of weapon in their hands, but we do not live in a perfect world and as such this is an impossible task. If the world was perfect and everyone got along all day everyday, then there would be no reason for weapons. Until that day, it is the responsibility of every US Citizen to ensure that at a minimum the Constitution is upheld by those who we elect. I encourage all customers and businesses that disagree with their decision to cancel their bank accounts, credit cards, loans, etc. They need to stay out of politics.
8
At least our lives wouldn't be threatened in every public venue. Pardon the expression, but the right to live without fear of being shot "trumps" all other concerns.
7
"If the citizens of this great nation are disarmed, it will only be a matter of time before the US Government decides that the Constitution should also go."
I think Ezra Dyer's opinion piece in the Boston Globe explains it best:
"I’m likewise skeptical of the argument that your cache of high-capacity semiautos will be the answer when you need to rise up against the tyrannical government. I hate to break this to you, but if the situation is you versus some nefarious future military, the shootout you envision will not come to pass. You’ll be in the middle of saying, “Good thing I have my trusty AR-’’ when you get vaporized by a Reaper drone."
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/03/05/how-did-skynyrd-end-being...
2
Maybe, but there is 150,000,000 of us and less than 1,500,000 in the military. Those 1,500,000 have sworn allegiance to the constitution and made a promise to defend it, just as have every state and local cop. They did not swear allegiance to the Dems or the GOP or to a president. So, of those 1,500,000 men and women in the military, how many do you think will follow orders to disarm the populace?
1
Liberals are rejoicing everywhere!
Pssst - don’t tell them this is no different than a Baker refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.
5
These comments validate my belief, and those of many others, that the liberal stance on guns is not about reducing crime, but about sticking your finger in the eyes of people you consider to be your political enemies and distasteful. You wonder why "nothing gets done" on this? It's because those on the right believe that there is a general Constitutional and human right to keep and bear arms, and those on the left generally do not. Since it's a fact that there's no such thing as an "assault weapon," and that calling for a ban on those is akin to calling for a ban on all semi-automatic rifles and handguns (95% of guns out there), it's a fact that all of your proposed measures are merely gun bans and confiscations. You simultaneously say that "no one is trying to take away your guns," so forgive us for not ascribing good faith to your side anymore.
4
So incredibly shameful and almost every liberal will praise this corporatist move. Gun regulation should occur through the democratic process, not corporate overlords deciding what legal products are acceptable.
Banks provide an invaluable financial service central to the functioning of a modern economy. They should and must administer this service without regard for politics, favor or puritanism. It kills me that I know 95% of my political allies will see this catastrophic shift of power to corporations as a victory. When each of them pulls a card from his wallet, I hope he remembers that big corporate may not approve of his choices in perhaps alcohol, books, weed, theater, pornography, religious donations……….the list is near infinite.
Is there no left in America worth its existence. All praise Citibank.
5
Lets be clear. Citigroup is demanding that their partners violate state anti discrimination laws? Not so sure that is a good idea....
3
My company is unable to refuse to do business with people or not hire them because we do not like their lifestyle, religion or hobbies. I expect no less from my bank.
Will be cancelling my relationship with Citibank as soon as new ones are established after 30 years and eliminating all our Citi business credit cards. Their job is to process purchases and hold our deposit money not tell me what to purchase. Will they next refuse to process burger and fries purchases by our overweight employees? Why do they allow anyone to charge cigarettes since their job apparently now includes health and safety? Lots of children die in swimming pools and cars. Will they no longer let me charge my auto repair parts and pool repair supplies? Will they stop doing business with companies that sell ladders which are incredibly dangerous. I will not be a client long enough to find out.
4
Everyone, including corporations, should be engaged in promoting public safety rules and regulations, and given that corporate entities are now afforded the same rights as living breathing human beings, in terms of being allowed to influence political ambitions, they cannot be prevented from seeking to influence political candidates.
2
There was a time when such businesses thought that they did not have to loan money to black people, but the Constitution fixed that issue. If the Constitution, still means anything, it will fix this issue also.
1
Nicely done, Citigroup! Kudos!
Now, if only your CEO hadn’t gone to the White House itself and agreed to lend money to Kushner...
Where is the Board and Compliance organization on what is a transaction with clear political risk and conflict of interest???
6
Nice move, Citigroup...
Nice lead-in pic, NYT - perhaps make this a recurring theme...
Show a table of the 500 largest US companies - and their socially-affirmative leadership for...
> Inclusive hiring and people development
> LGBTQ civil rights - including health insurance and retirement/pensions
> Community-level involvement, where they are sited
> National-level involvement, where they can lead by example or practice
> Global-level involvement, e.g. "sustainable environmentalism"
...and where views may differ or things may lag, give such businesses a standing option to respond in an op-ed...To riff on an O'Reilly slogan, make it a "no-dogma zone" - and focus where folks have gone beyond the letter of the statute or regulation, because of the self-evident benefit to society
Several years ago, set out to buy an American snowblower - with the premise that it had to be a good machine, but that I'd pay somewhat more...
Got a very good machine - and a very good company...
https://www.badgerinstitute.org/WIInterest/fablab.pdf
"...Brillion High School’s...(STEM) program is largely the product of an innovative partnership with the Ariens Co. In 2007...Ariens gave Brillion High a $1.5 million gift to double its STEM classroom space...Thus began a relationship that Ariens calls a national model for business-education partnerships...
Many long-standing companies have done such things - long before doing such things were cool...
6
Well done Citi - good reason to move my money over from Chase
7
While I appreciate this step in the right direction, if Citi wanted to make a bigger difference they could also ban the use of their credit cards on the purchase side - not just on the sell side. Do not allow people to buy these items with Citi credit cards.
Great idea from Andrew Ross Sorkin in his Feb. 19th NYT article.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/19/business/banks-gun-sales.html
5
Yes, definitely! Also, a person who has purchased a firearm should not be eligible for employment in general if any employer does not feel good about hiring a gun owner. Why stop at letting Wall Street finance executives dictate social policies in America? Let's give the power straight to the boss!
1
I’d also like to see insurance companies ask policy holders if there is a gun in the house. Yes? Different rate card for you, just like a smoker. To borrow a Republican argument, my premiums are subsidizing the poor judgement of gun owners.
3
If insurance companies used lawful firearm ownership in their actuarial tables they would end up giving a discount to firearm owners just like they give a discount for having a monitored alarm system. Of course the discount would be funded by those households without firearms.
Why do you think apartment managers recruit police officers for tenants? Do you think it attracts criminals to the neighborhood?
This is why the phrase "shall not be infringed" was included in the second amendment. Citibank is not a good American citizen. Otherwise they would not cheat their customers of $700 million dollars.
3
This is textbook "corporatism" aka "fascism".
3
The NRA is nothing more than a group of operators looking to justify big salries for people like La Perriere. They do this by trying to scvare gun owners into hysteria and antagonism toward America. What a disgusting racket
4
‘American Outdoor [ie, Smith & Wesson of Springfield Massachusetts], whose stock price has been more than halved since the 2016 election, stressed that “the solution is not to take a politically motivated action” that “results in no increase in public safety.”’
YO, Smith&Wesson!
An action like the discontinuation of your line of AR-15-style assault weapons? Like the assault rifle used in the Parkland massacre? And in the Las Vegas massacre? And in the Orlando massacre? And in other massacres TNTC?
THAT action, I’m pretty sure, would result in an “increase in public safety.”
Think about it, Smith and Wesson.
Think about it, American Outdoor (Smith & Wesson) CEO millionaire P. James Debney, Massachusetts resident, whose company made the semi-automatic rifle used in the Florida shooting that left 17 people dead.
Think about it, Mr. Debney, as you “share the nation’s grief.”
3
The same rifle that was used to save many at the Texas church mass killing. The same rifle that is used thousands of times every month to save the lives of innocents from violent criminals.
Anyone that that thinks the "tool" has anything to do with what is evil and what it good, does not think.
"Anyone that that thinks the "tool" has anything to do with what is evil and what it good, does not think."
Are you not, with your assertion above, making the case for restricting gun ownership to normal law-abiding people, consequently, given that guns in private ownership are purchased for reasons to do with protecting places of business, protecting private homes, for target practice, and for hunting, how is it possible to justify and permit the sale of machine guns, large capacity magazines, devices to change rifles into automatic weapons of war, (bump stocks), and if that isn't bad enough how can one not be in favor of background checks and registration ??
In the end its clear to me, and I believe to 10's of millions of Americans, that it's all about keeping the evergreen money river running into the pockets of our corporate owned government, and it's lackeys, with the 2nd amendment being used to obfuscate and coerce the masses by manipulating language, and managing perception, to cause them to believe the lie our Bill of Rights, and our Constitution are under assault.
1
It's not a big deal. This is a Citibank publicity stunt. Citibank, I am sure there are other banks that will gladly take that business from you. I guess you guys stole enough during the banking crisis that you can now be selective and make personal decisions for your customers. How bankish of you!
4
Just cancelled 3 citi cards with $18000 of credit
5
Thank you, Citigroup, for this courageous stand. I hope more institutions follow your lead.
8
Just canceled my citibank account. They have their belief and I have mine.
7
I just opened a Citibank account. I agree with their belief!
15
I will open a Citibank checking account. Already have several cards. Happy to see corporate America take a stance on guns. P.S. We own guns.
7
Because it is very important that corporate America does an end run around Congress and the court system and directly imposes the political views of executives and board directors on the American public.
When government fails to enact laws that reflect the values of the people, it is gratifying to see commercial institutions seek to influence practices where they can. If people think our powerful commercial institutions don’t already have a huge influence on our society through their policies, they are naive. Gun control is just joining the ranks of initiatives like recycling and second hand smoke, where the business institutions will take the lead to drive social change.
9
Hello, yea Hi. Whose values are you talking about? Last I checked half the country disagrees with your values
1
" lead to drive social change" - yes remove the tools needed by innocents to protect themselves. Sorry, but I can not understand how people can actually support the ides of removing natural rights protected by the Bill of Rights.
Quite the opposite from some of these comments I am a Citibank credit card holder and now very pleased to be one. But I will not longer buy from Cabela's with my card. I have no problem with their weapons for hunting, but holding a 2nd amendment event is a political stand that validates extreme views on owning guns.
36
It's a sad day in America when supporting the Constitution is seen as a "political stand that validates extreme views."
1
So, someone supporting the Constitution is "political"? Good to know you hate the Constitution. North Korea is calling you to return.
How about reading the second amendment. Try to thing the founders were concerned with the nation being able to defend itself so new with an armed militia ? Open you mind and really try to see this amendment in context to the time. Do we really need assault weapons and do you really think guns for and purpose then military protection of the USA and a genuine hunter is necessary for all of us to feel safe? What on earth are we doing in this country ?is living in the Wild West what people want? March on Saturday for sensible protections for all of us.
3
Well done. Since our elected officials cannot effect change and prostitute themselves to the NRA, this will help to change the gun culture in this country. I hope others follow.
12
This act won't change my mind. Instead it confirms once again that my rights are under attck by the left.
3
"it confirms once again that my rights are under attck [sic] by the left." In this scenario Citigroup is the left?
3
Yes, Citigroup has decided to join the left.
When banks red-line people it's bad.
When they red-line guns it's good.
Good luck keeping those red-lines in one place.
5
I don't own a gun but don't like the idea of Citigroup trying to make gun policy. I do have a Citbank credit card and intend to cancel it.
8
Citi has the right to limit who it does business with just as you do.
6
Yes, now if they took that attitude about dealing with gays, LGBT, blacks or Planned Parenthood would you also support them?
By your reasoning, Citi can also go ahead and weigh in on little things like voting rights, access to family planning etc. Look up the definition of "fascism". This is it.
I often part company with my fellow progressives who reflexively condemn corporate America and fail to recognize how much big business can do to make this country better. While it doesn’t go far enough, this is an example of good things corporations can do in the absence of action the government should be taking. Some other ideas for corporate America: insurance companies should refuse to cover gun sellers and owners; employers should “ gun test” like they drug test and refuse to hire employees who own guns; and hotels, stores and other places open to the public should prohibit bringing guns onto the premises, even in states that allow open or concealed carry (Arizona, for example, allows property owners to do this even though the state’s gun laws are otherwise ridiculously lax).
29
Well, if you want to annoy a random 30% or more of people, go ahead, make their day.
A word to the wise: if you're going after a minority, make sure it's a small one that isn't inclined to push back.
5
While you're at it, why not just demand that gun owners are stripped of voting rights, too?
1
'Gun test from employers?! Really, for exercising what has been confirmed by the Supreme Court as one's Constitutional right? What would these test be, polygraph, gunshot residue, home searches? This is one of the more ridiculous proposed solutions to any problem that I've ever read.
2
FINALLY. Hit 'em where it hurts, and can do good. thank you CITI!
9
Corporation exercising its rights, declines to bake wedding cakes for gun nuts. Tears rain down like Rambo's shell casings.
2
I would not have thought that a banking group as substantial as Citigroup would have imposed these standards on its retail customers. They were under no pressure to do so. It was not expected in the effort to control the gun violence in our country.
The tide turns slowly but then begins to rapidly run. Kudos to Citigroup. Hope from an unexpected source.
29
I do banking with Citibank and this move makes me happy. My Senator Todd Young [R-IN] received $2,896,732 from the NRA. He is not interested in having gun safety laws in this country. He supports the sale of automatic rifles and does not want the ban reinstated.
I can be proud of my bank, not my senator.
51
oh he did? Care to show the documentation of that? in the 2016 Election season, the NRA donated a total of $843,000 to candidates
1
Nonsense. McCain took in over 7 million alone, Blunt from MO 4, and Rubio 3. All in with attack ads & indirect support the NRA shelled out over 30 million to Trump. Do some actual research, that piece of technology in your hand allows you to look up this information yourself, not just post passive aggressive comments.
2
This is how we start to deflate our monolithic gun culture (what I believe is the root of massive gun violence)—slowly and systematically degrade the visibility of guns in our society. Coupled with strong background checks, 21 year-old age restriction, and banning assault rifles, this is how we disentangle the horror mess we’ve found ourselves in. Basically, it’s STOP making guns ubiquitous!
45
exactly--big time headline grabbing bills are fine, but grass roots restrictions and step by step common sense measures at every level of commerce and in affected communities are the real solutions.
3
As long as republicans in Congress lick the boots of the terrorist organization the NRAnothing will change. Hear that little Marco?
2
This is one way to fight the influence of the NRA (though this is but a drop in the bucket). If financial firms like banks refused to do business with gun manufacturers who routinely back loose gun laws and the NRA, if mutual funds and financial firms refused to invest in gun manufacturers, if like as REI has done, they stop doing buisness with firms who are associated with the kind of guns they believe people shouldn't have, the economic pressure would work. Similar things happened with things like lGBT rights, corporations realizing that LGBT people were both customers and valuable employees, helped with their power to sway legislators to pass laws protecting gays, despite all the hoo hah from the religious right with boycotts and such.
This is a start, but it would be great if the business community used their muscle to fight for practical gun laws and also take on the NRA and allow us to get rational gun regulations on the books and also make clear to gun firms that marketing high power/rapid refire "sexy" weapons might work for their bottom line but makes them no better than drug dealers.
14
This article appears to re-define the term 'slippery slope'. Where is this going to end? Will the banks next decide which political views we should espouse? What churches we attend? Which people we choose to associate with? Where we buy our next car?
8
It looks like this begins and ends with common sense, W.
Thanks for the alarmist overreaction, though.
Feel better soon.
32
Oh yes, in the same way that legalizing gay marriage will, as evangelicals hyperbolically predicted, spur a wave of bestiality. It's been fascinating seeing all the new man/animal couples out there, hasn't it?
9
how many kids, people have to be slaughtered before anything happens? No it is not a slippery slope when our politicians will not act on it because of NRA.
7
Wall St. is showing more ethics than our little President and his National Terrorist Association Congress....what a sick country.
Don't forget to return the favor and tell Guns Over People to drop dead on November 6 2018.
57
Advocates of taking firearms off the market essentially believe all people are bad at the core, so the only effective means of curtailing gun deaths is to eliminate the gun itself.
Advocates of keeping guns available believe the great majority of people are good, but guns should be kept out of the hands of sick and bad people.
3
RM...thank you for the false equivalence.
You forgot the middle position which is the majority of Americans: advocates of sensible gun control and public safety than requires universal background checks, elimination of military-war weapons for civilians, limitation of magazine sizes and a variety of other common sense measures that limit the widespread use of murder weapons.
Good luck with your polarization efforts.
25
All popular firearms designs have military origin.
Lever action rifles, as seen in "cowboy movies" originated with the Henry repeater rifle of the Civil war. At that time, it was viewed as a killing machine.
Bolt action rifles were developed for military use in the late 1800s and were adopted for civilian sales and use.
Revolver handguns originated as revolvers developed for military sales. Same is true for semi automatic handguns.
An AR-15 is not a military weapon. While it is derived from the 50 year old M16, it does not have the full automatic capability of the military weapon.
4
No one is advocating "taking firearms off the market", merely implementing common sense controls and moving their sales back to the specialty venues where they belong.
I never, ever remember as a child walking into a local department or big box store and seeing guns for sale a few aisles down from the toy department. That changed when Walmart moved in and brought its Southern swamp culture that no one in this town really asked for. That wasn't the America I grew up in during the late 60s and 70s.
Guns are freely available to those who want them. They may now have to drive to a specialty gun shop and pass a background test. They may now have to pay cash instead of financing the purchase through Citibank. It was fine back then, it'll be fine again. What's the big deal?
7
Why don't they do the same for tobacco products, which are predominantly used by those with lesser educations, are addictive, kill hundreds of thousands, and are a USA export of death to foreign countries?
4
Errr...they do. Tobacco products are HIGHLY regulated.
4
You think firearms are not regulated? Ever hear of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms?
But you misunderstand the issue. The issue here is a large bank providing liquidity and financing for a product . Not whether that product is subject to any regulation.
Give them 5 years.
There are many doors to close. Closing this door is necessary, but not sufficient to solve the problem.
4
It also might help if insurance companies rewrote their policies to delete coverage for gun related accidents or incidents.
Life insurance already won't cover death from suicide.
Now health insurance could except gun accidents if you have gun in your house
Suppose your kid fools around with your gun and shoots himself in the foot:
health insurance won't pay 10K of medical bills.
So lock up your guns securely.
I have hope that it's time to sell gun manufacturing company stock.
13
Suicide is covered by life insurance, policies generally have an exclusion for a certain number of years until it will cover it.
With health insurance the problem with not covering gun accidents is that it penalizes the victim, if health insurance doesn't cover gunshot accidents the parents may be reluctant to get the kid treatment, or will end up in an er and end up sticking the hospital with the bill when they can't pay and their insurance doesn't cover it.
3
that would be wonderful, so tired of reading the news about another tragedy wear children get hold of a loaded gun and it's labelled as an accident. NOT.
3
Yes, no one likes to hear about such events. However, there are a couple of things to understand. The number of such events is much smaller today that just a few years ago. The decrease is the result of the NSSF Child Safe and NFA Eddie Eagle programs. None of the anti-civil rights groups such as Everytown, Brady, VPC, ... have done any thing to reduce such events. They keep wanting more so that they make political gain from such.
Yet another politically motivated PR stunt. This "policy" does nothing to stop crazy people from obtaining firearms.
6
If banks won't finance gun emporia, there will be far fewer guns for sale, and fewer people can get them. Citibank stated that it likely will take a revenue hit. Where do you think that hit will come from?
1
This is the modern-day equivalent of feudal monarchs funding a church in perpetuity after their deaths, in the hope that the future would regard them with more affection than those who actually knew them during their miserable lifetimes. The Rockefellers, Carnegies, Fords and other robber barons did much the same. Building their empires on the backs of underpaid, overworked and uninsured workers, they left significant sums to public institutions. As if adding the word "Foundation" to a last name could erase the sins of child labor, starvation wages, lack of safety, union-busting, price-fixing, etc.
Now Citibank, that eternal paragon of virtue, revels in the fact that for the moment, at least, the gun industry is viewed less favorably than the banking industry. It "boldly" takes steps which won't affect anyone in the C-suite. Think your average investment banker spends much time hunting or at the range? Ha! Think Citibank will stop assessing ATM fees, or minimum balance fees, or transactional fees, or lower its credit card interest rates to something not usurious? Ha!
The easily-impressed will be easily impressed. The rest of us-- not so much. How long before some bank in the South decides to no longer extend credit to its commercial customers who sell cakes to gays. Bankers posing as morality leaders is beyond absurd.
7
Some on the left were incensed because a Colorado baker did not want to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. The argument is that if an entity is open for business, then it must serve all. Those on the left should also be incensed because Citigroup and some other businesses are practicing discrimination, but in the name of gun control. But no, I expect the left to applaud these businesses for age and product discrimination in these cases, because the left believes in the goal. I think here is something called hypocrisy.
10
This is a business using its influence to try and get businesses they deal with to act ethically (in their eyes). Companies routinely do business with firms they feel comfortable with, whose policies match theirs, and as long as it is not covered by discrimination law (for example, a business refusing to do business with a firm that employs women, blacks, etc). Gun owners are not a protected class, people have the right to own guns in this country but they are not a protected class because gun ownership is not covered by discrimination laws. Businesses legally can choose partners based on things like political views, charitable giving or the way the partner does business, happens all the time.
5
Bill d: Thanks for your thoughts. My issue is not with the businesses, but it is with those who did not support the Colorado baker, but support these various businesses in practicing gun control through legal discrimination. Not sure about the legality of age aspect though.
My view is that businesses should be free to choose their customers, based on any criteria, and the market will determine which ones survive. As a NRA member and a devout supporter of gun rights, I have no quarrel with the positions these businesses are taking, just as I had none with the Colorado baker. I do business with Citibank and will continue to do so until another entity offers me a better deal.
1
So you're cool with letting the markets decide that discriminating against blacks or hispanics or homosexuals is ok, but not when markets decide they don't want to sell or finance the selling of guns?
Sounds very Republican of you
4
Actions like this make the depths of institutional racism in this country apparent. For decades the primary loss of life in firearm homicides has been in minority low income urban neighborhoods by handguns and nothing is really done. It is only when the middle class is affected that action starts to take place, even when they promote additional gun laws which will have no measureable impact on the number of firearm homicides in the country.
3
. "Mr. Corbat, who called himself “an avid outdoorsman and responsible gun owner,”
Translation: On one or two occasions, he might have gone out with a group of light-loafered Fudds to shoot at pen-raised quail
As a matter of fact:
1. ALL retail sales are accompanied by a background check/ Beyond establishing legal age, the retailer has NO Obligation to tell these felators exactly what age a customer happens to be
2 Bump stocks are not firearms. They are not serially numbered or traceable. Most are sold direct from their manufacturer By whatever means they choose.
3. Define "High Capacity Magazine."
4. Most gun companies and gun owners are More Than Happy to go elsewhere when a company does not want their business and shows irresponsibility by choosing a political crusade over customer service.
5
Well, if a company is in a partnership with Citigroup, which finances a major slice of America's commerce, it will kowtow to Citigroup's wishes. And in this case, that is a good thing.
No, not all retail sales are accompanied by a background check. I can go to any gun show/flea market and buy a gun, no background check needed.
If Citibank says "We won't do business with you unless you refuse to sell to persons under X age," then you will either do as they say, or they won't do business with you. Good for them.
Bump stocks convert semi-automatic weapons (notice, weapon, not hunting rifle) into machine guns. Period. Machine guns are illegal. And if Citigroup does not want to finance machine guns, bump stocks, or yellow meated watermelons, that is their privilege to do so, and what Citigroup does, other banks will likely follow. Good!
A high capacity magazine is anything over the maximum of three rounds that was the legal maximum for decades until the modern gun manufacturing lobby bought the NRA and the congress.
The NRA and those who support it have engaged in a political crusade for the past thirty years to promote the idea that to be armed is to be American. Thank goodness we are finally as a nation waking up to their theft of our lives. Congress may wake up after November. Let's all hope so.
14
Bump stocks do not make weapons into machine guns.
Can you provide a reference to the 3 round magazine limit?
Nice move by Michael Corbat and Citigroup. Again, the Parkland students should be commended for raising consciousness and putting pressure on corporations to act. Let's hope other companies follow Citi's lead. Jamie Dimon, are you listening, its your turn next.
13
I was actually thinking of dumping my citibank CC soon, but with this move, I'll keep my card.
5
As Kanye would say, "No one [bank] should have all that power."
I'm glad in the short-term that Citi is throwing their weight around to restrict gun sales; but banks shouldn't be too big to fail, jail, or cross. We should have a sane government that will keep both guns AND banks in check.
November is our last chance to get that right.
9
A long time coming. Now if only others will follow suit. Small steps in the right direction for America and protecting Americans, especially our children.
Parkland may be our turning point. At long last. Keep it up everyone.
13
"Banks serve a societal purpose..." says Michael L. Corbat, the CEO of Citibank.
Citibank has been ordered by the US government to refund $700 million to its customers "for unfair and deceptive credit card practices. This includes unfairly billing consumers for credit card add-on products, deceptively marketing those products, and deceptive collection practices. Citibank has agreed to pay about $700 million in refunds on about 8.8 million accounts."
https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/blog/citibank-to-refund-700-mil...
I just received a check from them a few weeks ago.
4
Bravo! And brave. May more of this country's organizations from banks to schools to PTA boards to churches join the movement. There are more ways than government alone to create social change.
7
A very valuable step forward. And well placed in the context of Citibank's obligations related to other social-responsibility issues, such as workplace safety. Please live up to the press release. And consider too that your lobbying dollars should not go to the campaigns of legislators who sit on the sidelines while children (and concert goers, etc., etc.) are slaughtered.
10
"Edward Skyler, an executive vice president at Citigroup who helped craft the policy, wrote in a blog post that the company’s announcement “will invite passion on both sides.” But he stressed that the policies are “not centered on an ideological mission to rid the world of firearms.” "
That would be difficult to do, especially since the USA is the largest small arms exporter in the world. I wonder how many deals like that Citibank participates in?
It's curious he would phrase it that way, “not centered on an ideological mission to rid the world of firearms.” The UN Arms Trade Treaty aims to do exactly that, to disarm all civilian populations throughout the world.
1
As of this morning March 22, 2018 there is no such thing as a UN Ban or Plan to halt sales or ownership of weapons by private citizens. Utter hogwash still bandied about to inflame and mislead the pitiful fearful "citizens" who are terrified to lose their "protection" and "fun" destructive toys. Heaven forbid they should make an effort to get to know people who do not look like they think they should or have differing or no religious ties. Better to stay fearful, target practicing to protect themselves from a government they are too lazy to take part in. Pretty darn sad as well as bad when children and women as well as indiscriminate crowds are mass murdered by cranky white males who so easily can get ASSault type weapons. And so incredibly hypocritical of these pseudo Christians.
"FACT CHECK . ORG Q: Does the Obama administration intend to “force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for U.S. citizens” through a United Nations treaty?
A: No. The administration plans to negotiate a treaty to regulate the international export and import of weapons. It says that it won’t support any treaty that regulates the domestic transfer or ownership of weapons, or that infringes on the Second Amendment."
4
These tinkerbells seem to have a compulsion to blurt our what responsible sportsmen and supporters of the Second Amendment they are.
Lynne Perry:
In the interest of an informed American public, you should look that up again. Things have changed since that statement was made in 2014.
https://www.heritage.org/trade/report/simple-plan-2017-the-arms-trade-tr...
The calling semiautomatic firearms as "modern sporting rifles" is apt, but not in the most noxious sense as the targets of these weapons have increasingly become masses on innocent human beings.
5
Meant in the most noxious sense.....
1
This is how a tipping point is reached. Chinese proverb: Even a journey of 1,000 miles begins with one step.
Good for Citigroup.
108
I salute Citigroup for its stand and am reminded of the powerful role American corporations played by divesting in South Africa helping to end apartheid. Maybe if many companies follow Citibank, Walmart and others someday we can join the civilized world with common sense gun ownership.
45
Citigroup, gun control? I'll believe it when I see it.
Thank you CitiGroup!
Hundreds of millions of Americans are backing you!
I am switching to your bank!
13
Hmmm --
As I recall - if I'm not mistaken - somewhere in the Second Amendment are the words -- "WELL REGULATED" --
As in - having strong ("Well") REGULATIONS to manage the sale and ownership of firearms in this country --
Somehow - those words are never mentioned when the pro-gun folks start shouting about their so-called "Second Amendment Rights" --
Hmmm...
39
Well regulated does not have anything to do with financial companies. Not to mention that back in that era there were no govt regs on buying or selling a gun.
It's the militia, not the guns, that is supposed to be regulated.
That's because you don't know what they mean in the context they were used. "Well Regulated" does not mean regulated by the Federal Government or State Government. It also applies to the militia, not "arms" or "the people." A well regulated militia means a well trained and adequately supplied militia. It contemplates that each citizen would be equipped and prepared to serve as a soldier if called on to do so. The American Revolution was won largely by citizen-soldiers (the 'minute men' if you will) who were called up by local militias. They came largely trained and prepared to fight without needing extensive government support or equipment to be placed into the field. This fact was not lost on the Founding Fathers when they drafted the Constitution.
Hear that? That's the sound of the ball rolling.
40
Merchants of death do not deserve profits.
15
What a great way to stand up to the NRA.
Well done, Citigroup. Thank you.
63
Thank you Citigroup. This action has restored my faith in you. You are not asking for anything but common sense regarding guns. You are not denying anyone from "exercising their rights to own guns" but to use common sense...national background check is a bare minimum action. There are obviously too many who don't have that common sense and are defiant about their "right to own." Military-style weapons do not belong in the common household. Thank you Citigroup for using your heads.
29
THANK YOU Andrew Ross Sorkin!
4
The company said that "real revenue is at risk". If there was a moral compass involved in the calculations: "Real kids versus real revenue", it shouldn't have taken so long.
Well, better late than never. Time to LEAD!
10
These kids are your customers of tomorrow.
2
Sturm Ruger supports profits over people's lives. It has been reported that the total gun industry sales were $17B in 2016 and that is also the year where they doubled the manufacture of the AR-15 or military assault weapon of choice for mass shootings.
These people using it, and similar semi automatic weapons, must be the worst sportsmen in history. It takes 50 rounds of ammunition to bring down a Bambi? These are not hunting weapons or weapons of protection, they are weapons of war.
Thank you Citigroup for backing the majority of Americans who want a permanent ban on military assault weapons, and we put American lives, and the lives of our kids over your profits every time! Congress stop ignoring us as we won't go away this time around.
59
There is reason to be optimistic about the effectiveness of the new anti-gun movement. This step is one of the many that will continue to arrive much to the chagrin of "some" gun owners. The American public is strongly in support of more stringent gun laws and are making their presence known more forcefully. We will continue to pick the low hanging fruit like taking guns from domestic abusers and stopping under age 21 sales of certain types of guns. Over all gun sales are down. Remington is soon to be in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. The stock of American Outdoor Brands (AOBC), the company formerly known as Smith & Wesson, has dropped 8% since the day after the Parkland shooting. Vista Outdoor (VSTO), which makes guns and ammunition, has declined 7%. Sturm Ruger (RGR) is down slightly. All while the broader market has risen. Keep the faith and continue to work at the state level. Even the NRA has a limited amount of money to take all these cases to the court.
5
Well done Citibank! For once putting the well being of country and citizens ahead of financial concerns.
8
If the financial industry adopts a broad set of industry wide restrictions on financing the manufacture, distribution and retail sale of firearms I think that
will have a very significant. Manufacturers have to be compelled to stop producing military assault rifles. By taking away their financing if they don't
will be a huge incentive. Of course, there are millions in wide circulation out of the control of manufacturers and retailers. But shutting down the entire supply system including ammunition and accessories will go some way toward eliminating their use by very vulnerable populations.
5
Costco members all use Citigroup Visa credit cards. What percent are NRA members and gun owners and 2nd Amendment supporters? What percent are turned off by NYC-based socialists and Big Government anti-gun cultists?
How many will cut up their Citigroup Visa cards and cancel their Costco memberships?
As a strict Constitutionalist and 2nd Amendment supporter, I'm inclined to drop my Citigroup card, but I don't want to fire Costco. That may save Citigroup.
What happens IF in 5-7 years when freight forwarding companies stop doing business with firearms dealers. I am not saying WHEN; I am asking IF.
I would suspect that the percentage is pretty low since the total membership for NRA is only around 5 million to begin with. And according to wikipedia, Costco membership is around 85 million. If every NRA member was also a Costco member, it would not top 10 percent.
5
You're wrong on your basic facts. Costco members all use Visa cards, but not all use Citigroup Visa cards. I use a Chase Visa card at Costco. Also, if you're a "strict Constitutionalist", you might try actually reading the document and thinking about the "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment.
12
Don't forget to contact your investment managers to demand they divest from companies who won't follow common sense gun policies.
13
Yes I have already made sure my portfolio does not contain any companies like Citibank!
4
Never thought I would write these words - So big you can help. Thank you Citigroup.
85
Citi says they only want common sense measures. Who's common sense? What happens if confiscation becomes common sense to them?
3
Let's just use the NRA's common sense, that'll work......
I applaud Citi for taking this step.
26
Another PR move to appear politically correct; but, it's cosmetic. Too many loopholes. If they had any real guts, they would in fact promote a gun-free America so we could join other democracies that are based on the rule of law. In those nations, it is illegal for civilians to possess weapons of mass destruction--handguns, assault rifles, machine guns, et al--weapons with which America is infested like a lethal plague. We know the locus of this plague--the NRA.
5
You must not be aware that it's illegal to possess machine guns. Or even aware that assault weapons are only issued to military and law enforcement.
Would love to see the next step....divest from the gun industry.
13
I don't care what the actual motives are. THANK YOU. You will get MY business. Who's next ??????
55
As business owners and consumers we can start a movement to reward them by moving our accounts. I am doing that today.
26
And many others will move TO Citigroup services. More Americans support sensible and strongly enforced gun laws than there are Americans who:
-Are too frightened to breathe without a fire arm close at hand
-Harbor hopes of armed insurrection in order to establish a country that fits only their views
-Thinks that vigilantism is the best way to keep the peace
10
Any corporate CEO who pushes away profitable customers to satisfy a few loud complainers should be replaced immediately.
5
Randy, As you point out this business decision is controversial. Many have been afraid to make such a move because of sentiments like those you express. What we have to see now is if the many US citizens who support gun ownership take offense at this very sensible and minimal step. If not, more businesses may move in this direction. It requires some courage for consumers to support reasonable efforts, rejecting the "they are coming to take our guns" approach of the NRA.
14
Randy, my understanding of the issue is that the majority of Americans support increased gun control measures.
I certainly would not call the majority of Americans " a few loud complainers".
A CEO who looks after the image and the corporate conduct of an organization is one to be rewarded, not replaced.
50
Maybe Citibank understands its own customer base a lot better than you do, Randy. You think they didn't research the risk/benefit to their profits before making this move?
5
However effective, or not effective, it is a worthy effort that Ii hope catches on.
6
Thanks, Citigroup. It's a start.
EVERY GUN in OUR United States of America must be REGISTERED on a national database, state LICENSED and FULLY INSURED for liability.
Just like cars.
Attention gun owners: We do not want your guns. We want your guns to stop killing us and our loved ones. Don't you?
164
Every American who is distressed with what is happening in OUR United States should join the student-sponsored "March for Our Lives" this Saturday, March 24 - even if your concerns are about more than gun control. Let's Stand Together, Good People, and show our disgust with this administration and their Robber Baron brethren/operatives.
You can find a march/demonstration in your area here:
https://event.marchforourlives.com/event/march-our-lives-events/search/
12
njglea - I used to be the first to protest and in fact was the guy who put up a sukkah in the center of Westlake Center one night in what is now known as Occupy Seattle. I have great stories of people chanting, Happy Sukkot, Let My People Go, and of police officers screaming in my ear to get me to move. What did it all accomplish? Nothing.
But when people get together and write a corporation and say we will no longer do business with you because of your stand, things change rapidly. Our politicians could care less about a million women marching in D.C. But if those women all get together with their pocketbooks and take a stand, things happen.
It seems that there is a protest almost every day now in Seattle and all it does is snarl traffic and potentially get police chiefs fired for not arresting protesters when they block intersections without a permit:)). People from both sides come out ready to get into fist fights like some kind of bar brawl and there are always looters who have no political stand other than to smash in a window of a jewelry store and grab a few watches.
The only two senators who give a rip about people protesting in Seattle would be Senator Murray and Senator Cantwell and I am pretty sure they are already on board. City Councilwoman Kshama Sawant will be there with her bullhorn but that is what she does for a living:)
3
And before you can buy a gun, take a written test and an eye exam and then be required to buy liability insurance.
JUST LIKE CARS!
7
Fear of the NRA appears to be declining in the business community if not among cowardly politicians. The general public, polls show, has always been in favor of sensible solutions to the problem of mass shootings. In the end, however, neither Wall Street banks nor retailers like Walmart can compel politicians to pass these sensible solutions. Only the American voters can do it.
35
The public overwhelmingly supports reasonable gun control measures, yet due to our system of campaign contribution bribery we have to wait for private business to address issues of public policy because politicians are unwilling to defy their paymasters.
116
Hope the tide is changing.
39
I expect to discuss this at the Chase annual meeting.
25
The opposite of a boycott is a policy of reward for institutions that do what you believe in. If you think that Citibank is taking a risk for the right reasons, help make up for any lost revenue due to that decision. Move an account over to Citibank from another institution without the social awareness to understand that they have the ability to go where our politicians fear to tread.
68
While good deeds are to be lauded, Citibank is a vampire and absolutely no friend of the consumer.
1
I applaud the initiative, but I am not sure if it can be enforceable. How can a bank distinguish purchase transactions; how do they know what am I buying?
3
Really? Unless you use cash, all your purchases are recorded somewhere. The level of detail may differ, but I'd bet my bank knows when I purchased 2% and when I purchased whole milk.
6
How do you think they can segment year end statements into categories (i.e. health, restaurants, etc) for tax purposes. Can't wait to shift my Goldman account to Citibank.
20
Every Bank knows what you are buying, location and the name of merchant, the time, quantity, etc. when you pay with a debit/credit card. And, based on that data the transaction can be declined in seconds. They can set restrictions/flags based on a merchant, source country (location of supplier), and more.
6