Gun retailers say the Obama administration is trying to put them out of business with regulations and investigations that bypass Congress and choke off their lines of credit, freeze their assets and prohibit online sales.
Since 2011, regulators have increased scrutiny on banks’ customers. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. in 2011 urged banks to better manage the risks of their merchant customers who employ payment processors, such as PayPal, for credit card transactions. The FDIC listed gun retailers as “high risk” along with porn stores and drug paraphernalia shops.
PHOTOS: Best concealed carry handguns
Meanwhile, the Justice Department has launched Operation Choke Point, a credit card fraud probe focusing on banks and payment processors. The threat of enforcement has prompted some banks to cut ties with online gun retailers, even if those companies have valid licenses and good credit histories.
“This administration has very clearly told the banking industry which customers they feel represent ‘reputational risk’ to do business with,” said Peter Weinstock, a lawyer at Hunton & Williams LLP. “So financial institutions are reacting to this extraordinary enforcement arsenal by being ultra-conservative in who they do business with: Any companies that engage in any margin of risk as defined by this administration are being dropped.”
A Justice Department representative said the agency is conducting several investigations that aim to hold accountable banks “who are knowingly assisting fraudulent merchants who harm consumers.”
“We’re committed to ensuring that our efforts to combat fraud do not discourage or inhibit the lawful conduct of these honest merchants,” the Justice Department said in a May 7 blog post.
But gun retailers say their businesses are being targeted in the executive branch’s efforts:
• T.R. Liberti, owner and operator of Top Gun Firearms Training & Supply in Miami, has felt the sting firsthand. Last month, his local bank, BankUnited N.A., dumped his online business from its service. An explanatory email from the bank said: “This letter in no way reflects any derogatory reasons for such action on your behalf. But rather one of industry. Unfortunately your company’s line of business is not commensurate with the industries we work with.”
• Black Rifle Armory in Henderson, Nevada, had its bank accounts frozen this month as the bank tried to determine whether any of Black Rifle’s online transactions were suspicious.
• In 2012, Bank of America suddenly dropped the 12-year account of McMillan Group International, a gun manufacturer in Phoenix, even though the company had a good credit history, the owner said. Gun parts maker American Spirit Arms in Scottsdale, Arizona, received similar treatment by Bank of America, the country’s largest banking institution.
“This seems to be happening with greater frequency and to many more dealers,” said Joe Sirochman, owner of American Spirit Arms. “At first, it was the bigger guys — gun parts manufacturers or high-profile retailers. Now the smaller mom-and-pop shops are being choked out, and they need their cash to buy inventory. Freezing their assets will put them out of business.”
Choking off access to banks
After McMillan Group owner Kelly McMillan publicized Bank of America’s action on his Facebook account, he found that thousands of small gun-shop owners across the country were in the same situation. Banks were either dropping them, freezing their accounts or refusing to process their online sales, so he opened a credit card processing company for the gun industry called McMillan Merchant Solutions.
“Four generations of my family have been in this industry. This is my way to give back,” said Mr. McMillan, adding that many of his customers were denied banking access because of the nature of their business. “This is an attempt by the federal government to keep people from buying guns and a way for them to combat the Second Amendment rights we have. It’s a covert way for them to control our right to manufacture guns and individuals to buy guns.”
BankUnited N.A., which dropped Top Gun Firearms Training & Supply in Miami from its customer list, declined to comment.
In a statement to The Washington Times, Bank of America said: “We would not deny banking services to an organization solely on the basis of its industry.”
The banking giant blamed a misunderstanding with the Arizona gun manufacturers McMillan Group International and American Spirit Arms.
However, the American Banking Association, the industry’s advocacy group in Washington, said businesses deemed “risky” will be frozen out of the financial system if the Justice Department continues Operation Choke Point because the regulatory burden and risk of investigation will be too great for less-specialized banks to bear.
“We’re being threatened with a regulatory regime that attempts to foist on us the obligation to monitor all types of transactions,” Richard Riese, a senior vice president at the American Bankers Association, said in the April 28 issue of American Banker. “All of this is predicated on a notion that the banks are a choke point for all businesses.”
In an interview with The Times, Mr. Riese said the cost of doing business with gun retailers outweighs the benefits for some banks, given that regulators deem the industry as “risky,” state laws vary on the sale of guns and ammunition, and the Justice Department’s enforcement.
The Independent Community Bankers of America, an association for small banks, said enforcement actions from the Justice Department are too broad and overly aggressive.
“While preventing fraud is a top concern for community banks, it needs to be balanced with ensuring that businesses and consumers that operate in accordance with applicable laws can still access payment systems,” bankers association President Camden Fine told the Justice Department in an April 7 letter. “ICBA requests that the DOJ suspend Operation Choke Point immediately and focus its resources directly on businesses that may be violating the law, rather than targeting banks providing payment services.”
Justice’s operation threatens to “close access to the financial system to law-abiding businesses, because the mere prospect of an enforcement action is sufficient to cause financial institutions to restrict access to their payment systems to only established companies that present low risks,” the organization said.
‘No statutory authority’
Regulations on the financial industry have increased over the past few years, said Thomas P. Vartanian, chairman of Dechert LLP, a global law firm specializing in regulatory and financial matters.
He noted the chilling effect of overregulation by the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, an interagency behemoth that includes the departments of Commerce, Justice, Labor, Education, Homeland Security and Justice along with the Internal Revenue Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Secret Service, the FBI, the Social Security Administration and the Federal Trade Commission.
“The key to effective regulation is the balancing between too little and too much regulation,” Mr. Vartanian said. “The problem here is that there are now so many regulators, including the Department of Justice, with their fingers on the scales on that balancing act.”
Congressional Republicans say the Obama administration is using its regulatory powers to shutter industries it doesn’t like. Last year, 31 Republicans accused the Justice Department and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. of intimidating banks and payment processors to “terminate business relationships with lawful lenders.”
In a March hearing before the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs subcommittee on consumer protection, Sen. David Vitter, Louisiana Republican, complained that several payday lenders — another industry labeled “risky” by the administration — were being dropped by their banks in his home state.
“There is a determined effort from [the Justice Department] to the regulators to cut off credit and use other tactics to force [payday lenders] out of business,” Mr. Vitter said. “I find that deeply troubling because it has no statutory basis, no statutory authority.”
In a House hearing in April, FDIC acting General Counsel Richard Osterman defended his agency’s definition of what constitutes a “risky” business — subject to money laundering or other criminal behavior — but made it clear that no bank is outright prohibited from serving any such companies.
“We have actually put out a policy statement on this issue to make it very clear from the very top that as long as financial institutions are properly managing their relationships and the risks, they’re neither prohibited nor discouraged from providing these services,” Mr. Osterman said.
“Basically, what we’re saying is, these types of programs can be, can involve high-risk activities that could create litigation risk and reputation risk for financial institutions,” he said. “So, they need to do due diligence to ensure that the folks who they’re banking are acting in a safe and sound manner.”
But the cost of that due diligence, coupled with the threat of a lawsuit for doing business with a customer in an industry the government has defined as risky, is having a chilling effect on legitimate companies such as gun dealers, said Mr. Weinstock, the Hunton & Williams lawyer.
“We are one of the most heavily regulated industries in America,” said Mr. Sirochman of American Spirit Arms. “We have to ship our guns to another federal licensed dealers for pickup. The people that are picking up the rifles have to go through a background check to make sure they don’t have any felonies. You can’t own a gun or pass the background check if you do.
“All this is, is an assault on our Second Amendment rights.”
I have read many articles about this, but it was pornography - it's very difficult for a porn star to have a bank account, it seems. It feels like bs puritan nonsense to me but I guess eh, that's the free market right?
Article wrote:“We are one of the most heavily regulated industries in America,” said Mr. Sirochman of American Spirit Arms. “We have to ship our guns to another federal licensed dealers for pickup. The people that are picking up the rifles have to go through a background check to make sure they don’t have any felonies. You can’t own a gun or pass the background check if you do."
Article wrote:“We are one of the most heavily regulated industries in America,” said Mr. Sirochman of American Spirit Arms. “We have to ship our guns to another federal licensed dealers for pickup. The people that are picking up the rifles have to go through a background check to make sure they don’t have any felonies. You can’t own a gun or pass the background check if you do."
Law abiding citizens will actually wait for background checks to go through. Or simply not take advantage of loopholes(or bother to look for them)
This is why further regulation will do almost nothing to stop criminals. They'll buy from strawman dealers, or just buy guns already in circulation.
Criminals don't need to go to a gunshop to pick up a gun. Throw a rock down a backalley in Chicago and you'll hit a half dozen AKs and 20 or so pistols, and that's in a city with tough gun laws.
Better enforcement of existing laws and elimination of unnecessary laws is all that needs to happen.
Grey Templar wrote: Criminals don't need to go to a gunshop to pick up a gun. Throw a rock down a backalley in Chicago and you'll hit a half dozen AKs and 20 or so pistols, and that's in a city with tough gun laws.
Better enforcement of existing laws and elimination of unnecessary laws is all that needs to happen.
Well, technically, instead of buying one in a seedy back alley in Chicago, our hypothetical felon could also go to a gun show in most states, no background check required.
Grey Templar wrote: Criminals don't need to go to a gunshop to pick up a gun. Throw a rock down a backalley in Chicago and you'll hit a half dozen AKs and 20 or so pistols, and that's in a city with tough gun laws.
Better enforcement of existing laws and elimination of unnecessary laws is all that needs to happen.
Well, technically, instead of buying one in a seedy back alley in Chicago, our hypothetical felon could also go to a gun show in most states, no background check required.
That's really not as true as people would lead you to believe.
Umm, gun shops sell a product that criminals do really rather like to get their hands on. Claiming that they shouldn't be designated as high risk just makes no sense.
Now, there's plenty of good reasons to talk about the issues with Operation Chokepoint. Using just industry types to identify banks basically amount to a guilt by association approach which is more than a little problematic, especially when it is likely to lead banks to just stop bothering offering services to those industries. And that might even end up counter-productive, as if those industries return to dealing in cash they become more prone to criminal behaviour, not less.
But the fact that this piece of legislation only gets talked about when it impacts guns, and then gets talked about in an "OMG they're trying to take our guns in this sneaky, tricky way" context really just says a lot about dakka's very weird fixation on guns.
We haven't seen any real issue when it comes to gun shops regarding this legislation.
What has become much more interesting is the marijuana purveyors in the states where it's legalized. The activity were seeing now in our colorado and Washington branches has forced us to take a "none at all" policy--for now--because there are many instances with them that would previously have been signifiers for money laundering.
Sounds like the problem is not just a case of "oooh, guns, high risk", but actually the use of things like PayPal in connection with them.
Now PayPal does make it quite a bit easier to shuffle money around, and hacked accounts could be used to buy stuff criminals like (guns, drugs, porn). But using an easily abused source of money should be the focus then, not what it is used on.
If you use "high risk" business as a trigger for suspicious activity in relation to certain payment methods, then the trigger should cause focus on the buyer.
Of course the cynical person in me also wants to turn the argument usually used by people that are pissed off now and say "you have no constitutional right to credit and banking, enjoy your cash business".
d-usa wrote: Sounds like the problem is not just a case of "oooh, guns, high risk", but actually the use of things like PayPal in connection with them. .
No - well, not only. There are some elements of the banking industry as a whole (not just Paypal) that have essentially decided to stay away from anything they consider to be a vice. Here is one of many articles on it. It's safe for work.
Grey Templar wrote: Criminals don't need to go to a gunshop to pick up a gun. Throw a rock down a backalley in Chicago and you'll hit a half dozen AKs and 20 or so pistols, and that's in a city with tough gun laws.
Better enforcement of existing laws and elimination of unnecessary laws is all that needs to happen.
Well, technically, instead of buying one in a seedy back alley in Chicago, our hypothetical felon could also go to a gun show in most states, no background check required.
That's really not as true as people would lead you to believe.
<--- Has been to multiple Gun Shows in Houston.
It really is as true as people would lead you to believe. Walk in, pay money, walk out with rifle and/or shotgun.
Oklahoma City PD always hangs out at our gun shows and watch known felons pick up weapons without any checks. They pick then up in the parking lot, but the seller doesn't care.
d-usa wrote: Sounds like the problem is not just a case of "oooh, guns, high risk", but actually the use of things like PayPal in connection with them. .
No - well, not only. There are some elements of the banking industry as a whole (not just Paypal) that have essentially decided to stay away from anything they consider to be a vice. Here is one of many articles on it. It's safe for work.
This is true. I have to step carefully here as this is my field. Generally (and with public knowledge) banks and finanicla institutions prefer to steer clear of businesses that present social or suitability risks for the business. That may or may not include gun manufacturers or retailers, depending on each bank's appetite.
At a gun show, private citizens are allowed to sell their firearms without conducting a check. It's no different then when they sell them online, adds in a newspaper, etc... their just at a venue where there are people who wish to buy them. 18 states do require that private sellers at gun shows conduct checks, the rest do not.
Actual dealers, ie the folks this OP was referencing, are STILL required to conduct background checks on every firearm they sell at gun shows. The law is very clear that if you hold an FFL, any firearm that you sell, no matter the venue, you are required to conduct a check on that person.
The last two posts dovetail nicely into "things that I think are a problem, but that any possible solution would be a bigger problem". I don't think you should be able to buy a handgun without a background check, but I also think that essentially disallowing private sales of firearms is terrible; and that banks shouldn't have veto power over legitimate businesses, but that it's essentially a free market problem.
Ouze wrote: The last two posts dovetail nicely into "things that I think are a problem, but that any possible solution would be a bigger problem". I don't think you should be able to buy a handgun without a background check, but I also think that essentially disallowing private sales of firearms is terrible; and that banks shouldn't have veto power over legitimate businesses, but that it's essentially a free market problem.
Agreed.
But let's analyse the consequences. Take for example the Pot industry in Colorado. It's a cash only business that most banks won't accept.
Can you image that amount of hard currency onhand in those business? It ought to be public safety issue, because that's a awfully enticing target.
Ouze wrote: The last two posts dovetail nicely into "things that I think are a problem, but that any possible solution would be a bigger problem". I don't think you should be able to buy a handgun without a background check, but I also think that essentially disallowing private sales of firearms is terrible; and that banks shouldn't have veto power over legitimate businesses, but that it's essentially a free market problem.
My posts about banks is not related to this me thinks.
Ouze wrote: The last two posts dovetail nicely into "things that I think are a problem, but that any possible solution would be a bigger problem". I don't think you should be able to buy a handgun without a background check, but I also think that essentially disallowing private sales of firearms is terrible; and that banks shouldn't have veto power over legitimate businesses, but that it's essentially a free market problem.
Agreed.
But let's analyse the consequences. Take for example the Pot industry in Colorado. It's a cash only business that most banks won't accept.
Can you image that amount of hard currency onhand in those business? It ought to be public safety issue, because that's a awfully enticing target.
Step 1: Go to Gunshow for "supplies".
Step 2: Go to Bass Pro Shop for ski masks and kick-ass holsters.
Step 3: Google map to Pot Shops in Colorado.
Step 4: Mo Money. Mo Money.
sebster wrote: Umm, gun shops sell a product that criminals do really rather like to get their hands on. Claiming that they shouldn't be designated as high risk just makes no sense.
The thing that doesn't make sense to me is, why would banks want to do something to potentially harm their largest cashflow customers?
I forget the source I saw it on... but the Adult film industry makes something like 5 times the money that Hollywood as a whole does per year. As a bank is trying to make their money, why WOULDN'T they want in on that?
Ensis Ferrae wrote: The thing that doesn't make sense to me is, why would banks want to do something to potentially harm their largest cashflow customers?
I forget the source I saw it on... but the Adult film industry makes something like 5 times the money that Hollywood as a whole does per year. As a bank is trying to make their money, why WOULDN'T they want in on that?
If I'm not mistaken... it's because they fear that the Feds could confiscate the money.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: The thing that doesn't make sense to me is, why would banks want to do something to potentially harm their largest cashflow customers?
I forget the source I saw it on... but the Adult film industry makes something like 5 times the money that Hollywood as a whole does per year. As a bank is trying to make their money, why WOULDN'T they want in on that?
If I'm not mistaken... it's because they fear that the Feds could confiscate the money.
But why would the Feds necessarily just confiscate the money, when it came from a legal product?
Ensis Ferrae wrote: The thing that doesn't make sense to me is, why would banks want to do something to potentially harm their largest cashflow customers?
I forget the source I saw it on... but the Adult film industry makes something like 5 times the money that Hollywood as a whole does per year. As a bank is trying to make their money, why WOULDN'T they want in on that?
If I'm not mistaken... it's because they fear that the Feds could confiscate the money.
Yup, risk of accounts being tied to prostitution/drugs and organized crime in general. Same problem with ''legal'' pot.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: The thing that doesn't make sense to me is, why would banks want to do something to potentially harm their largest cashflow customers?
I forget the source I saw it on... but the Adult film industry makes something like 5 times the money that Hollywood as a whole does per year. As a bank is trying to make their money, why WOULDN'T they want in on that?
If I'm not mistaken... it's because they fear that the Feds could confiscate the money.
But why would the Feds necessarily just confiscate the money, when it came from a legal product?
Legal in Colorado. State Law.
Pot is still a controlled substance, federally speaking.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: The thing that doesn't make sense to me is, why would banks want to do something to potentially harm their largest cashflow customers?
I forget the source I saw it on... but the Adult film industry makes something like 5 times the money that Hollywood as a whole does per year. As a bank is trying to make their money, why WOULDN'T they want in on that?
If I'm not mistaken... it's because they fear that the Feds could confiscate the money.
But why would the Feds necessarily just confiscate the money, when it came from a legal product?
Legal in Colorado. State Law.
Pot is still a controlled substance, federally speaking.
If I were the feds, I'd just routinely confiscate cash from dispensories. Easiest way to enforce the law, and more profitable.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: But why would the Feds necessarily just confiscate the money, when it came from a legal product?
Despite the mainstream acceptance of pornography, it's actually of dubious legality, depending on jurisdiction. For example, at least once that I know of, a porn studio did one of those fishing expeditions where they sued people who were torrenting their films, and the filesharer prevailed in court with the understanding that the film was obscenity, and obscenity is not legally protected.
A pornographic producer\film star named Max Hardcore was in, 2007, federally prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to jail for producing pornographic films with consenting adults under obscenity laws. Mind-boggling, but there you have it.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: The thing that doesn't make sense to me is, why would banks want to do something to potentially harm their largest cashflow customers?
I forget the source I saw it on... but the Adult film industry makes something like 5 times the money that Hollywood as a whole does per year. As a bank is trying to make their money, why WOULDN'T they want in on that?
There's also the reputational risks associated with it as well.
I can't imagine your local regional bank would be that interested in being known as the 'porn bank.'
I can't imagine your local regional bank would be that interested in being known as the 'porn bank.'
While true, why would a bank be "advertising" who's money theyre holding? It seems a bit of a violation of trust (not that there's a doctor/patient or lawyer/client thing with banks and businesses) to be talking about who's money you're holding onto.
People are complaining that sales of guns are 'heavily regulated'.
The horror, now if it was something dangerous like milk, or tampons or toothpaste then I could understand heavy regulation, but guns; why, what could possibly go wrong?
Guns are harmless so there is no need to regulate how they are stored, conditions for postal oer online sale etc etc.
Could you imagine what would happen if people tried to purchase dangerous stuff like socks online and have it delivered to their homes. You know those socks could be bought by anyone, masquerading as a registered sock owner.
Orlanth wrote: People are complaining that postal sales of guns are 'heavily regulated'.
The horror, now if it was something dangerous like milk, or tampons or toothpaste then I could understand heavy regulation, but guns; why, what could possibly go wrong?
Orlanth wrote: People are complaining that postal sales of guns are 'heavily regulated'.
The horror, now if it was something dangerous like milk, or tampons or toothpaste then I could understand heavy regulation, but guns; why, what could possibly go wrong?
A Brit for gun control?
Brits are mostly for gun control, some went way too far.
The correct legislation came in after Hungerford, the knee jerk legislation came in after Dunblane. It was entirely politically motivated, dogmatised and stigmatised gun ownership in the UK. It also directly and indirectly led to rise in gun related crime.
The US is still too laise faire on gun control though. Methinks if you took a halfway point between the Blairites and the NRA you would get some fairly decent gun laws.
The US is still too laise faire on gun control though. Methinks if you took a halfway point between the Blairites and the NRA you would get some fairly decent gun laws.
Thing is, IMO, the issue isn't about "needing" more control laws, we in the US do need to do better about enforcing the ones already on the book. Once that's done, THEN I think we'd have a better picture on what may need to be done.
Well, I think pretty much anyone reasonable is for some measure of gun control. I doubt even the most Libertarian, Ron Paul T-shirt wearing person in the country is OK with the idea of some random idiot walking into Walmart and buying an RPG and some jerky. We all just argue about where the line is.
So, any minute now, the invisible hand should force a Porn Bank to open, right?
If I were the feds, I'd just routinely confiscate cash from dispensories. Easiest way to enforce the law, and more profitable.
I know right? Why would stomping all over someone's personal freedoms and destroying business ever be a bad thing?
What are you Communist? You think commodity traders should be regularly robbed by the government because of what exactly?
1) You don't have a personal freedom to break the law.
2) Its no more a legal business than someone who is involved in human trafficking.
Except when it's not illegal. Aren't you right wingers always going on about State's Rights? Or does that only apply to guns?
And comparing slavery to pot is honestly the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard.
Think I've got to take Colorado's side on this one. As far as I'm aware, the Constitution only gives the feds the power to regulate interstate commerce, so unless Colorado starts doing pot deals with Washington, they have no grounds to step in on Colorado/Washington's turf over this issue.
As for the guy I qouted, could we watch the name calling. I refrain from referring to you as a lefty communist loving moonbat.
If I were the feds, I'd just routinely confiscate cash from dispensories. Easiest way to enforce the law, and more profitable.
I know right? Why would stomping all over someone's personal freedoms and destroying business ever be a bad thing?
What are you Communist? You think commodity traders should be regularly robbed by the government because of what exactly?
1) You don't have a personal freedom to break the law.
2) Its no more a legal business than someone who is involved in human trafficking.
Except when it's not illegal. Aren't you right wingers always going on about State's Rights? Or does that only apply to guns?
And comparing slavery to pot is honestly the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard.
Think I've got to take Colorado's side on this one. As far as I'm aware, the Constitution only gives the feds the power to regulate interstate commerce, so unless Colorado starts doing pot deals with Washington, they have no grounds to step in on Colorado/Washington's turf over this issue.
As for the guy I qouted, could we watch the name calling. I refrain from referring to you as a lefty communist loving moonbat.
Please do tell where I called someone a name?
I would think comparing pot growers to sex slave traffickers is much worse. One grows a plant, the other sells people into slavery. Kinda apples and oranges.
If I were the feds, I'd just routinely confiscate cash from dispensories. Easiest way to enforce the law, and more profitable.
I know right? Why would stomping all over someone's personal freedoms and destroying business ever be a bad thing?
What are you Communist? You think commodity traders should be regularly robbed by the government because of what exactly?
1) You don't have a personal freedom to break the law.
2) Its no more a legal business than someone who is involved in human trafficking.
Except when it's not illegal. Aren't you right wingers always going on about State's Rights? Or does that only apply to guns?
And comparing slavery to pot is honestly the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard.
Think I've got to take Colorado's side on this one. As far as I'm aware, the Constitution only gives the feds the power to regulate interstate commerce, so unless Colorado starts doing pot deals with Washington, they have no grounds to step in on Colorado/Washington's turf over this issue.
See... That's logical and I support this. However, past SC rulings rendered all controlled substances regulated by the DEA.
It's still illegal federally. Banking institutions are federally regulated.
The instant that money enters a bank with branches in multiple states it becomes Interstate commerce, and thus subject to federal regulation.
Is the ISC clause overreaching? Yeah.
But I am opposed to drugs of any kind being legalized, with exceptions for real medical needs for pain relief. And no, moderate arthritis and migraines shouldn't allow a doctor to give you a pot license.
It should be very severe things. Like chronic back pain which cannot be treated by other means. It should also be distributed like other medical drugs, not grown by the patient.
Grey Templar wrote: But I am opposed to drugs of any kind being legalized, with exceptions for real medical needs for pain relief.
I'd prefer the government not to legislate protecting people from themselves, especially when doing so for decades has creating a wholly untenable prison population and the associated apparatus thereof.
I believe you are fond of the argument we should have less gun laws because they don't work, right? Well... people haven't stopped getting high, why do we still make cocaine illegal?
That Coke and Weed are still illegal is probably not for the best. Weed is no worse than tobacco or alcohol. Most people killed by Coke weren't killed by the coke itself but all the crap its cut with (I.E. illegal coke is more deadly than legal coke).
Some drugs should stay illegal. Heroine, Meth, LSD, that Russian stuff that literally rots you from the inside out. Legalizing that is madness.
LordofHats wrote: Some drugs should stay illegal. Heroine, Meth, LSD, that Russian stuff that literally rots you from the inside out. Legalizing that is madness.
LordofHats wrote: Some drugs should stay illegal. Heroine, Meth, LSD, that Russian stuff that literally rots you from the inside out. Legalizing that is madness.
Why LSD?
Seriously?Do you even know how bad LSD actually is?
LordofHats wrote: Some drugs should stay illegal. Heroine, Meth, LSD, that Russian stuff that literally rots you from the inside out. Legalizing that is madness.
Why LSD?
Seriously?Do you even know how bad LSD actually is?
I guess not, how bad is it?
There have been no documented human deaths from an LSD overdose.[48] It is physiologically well tolerated and there is no evidence for long-lasting physiological effects on the brain or other parts of the human organism.[49]
LSD may temporarily impair the ability to make sensible judgments and understand common dangers, thus making the user more susceptible to accidents and personal injury. It may cause temporary confusion, difficulty with abstract thinking, or signs of impaired memory and attention span.[50]
LordofHats wrote: Some drugs should stay illegal. Heroine, Meth, LSD, that Russian stuff that literally rots you from the inside out. Legalizing that is madness.
Why LSD?
Seriously?Do you even know how bad LSD actually is?
I guess not, how bad is it?
There have been no documented human deaths from an LSD overdose.[48] It is physiologically well tolerated and there is no evidence for long-lasting physiological effects on the brain or other parts of the human organism.[49]
LSD may temporarily impair the ability to make sensible judgments and understand common dangers, thus making the user more susceptible to accidents and personal injury. It may cause temporary confusion, difficulty with abstract thinking, or signs of impaired memory and attention span.[50]
LordofHats wrote: Some drugs should stay illegal. Heroine, Meth, LSD, that Russian stuff that literally rots you from the inside out. Legalizing that is madness.
Why LSD?
Seriously?Do you even know how bad LSD actually is?
I guess not, how bad is it?
There have been no documented human deaths from an LSD overdose.[48] It is physiologically well tolerated and there is no evidence for long-lasting physiological effects on the brain or other parts of the human organism.[49]
LSD may temporarily impair the ability to make sensible judgments and understand common dangers, thus making the user more susceptible to accidents and personal injury. It may cause temporary confusion, difficulty with abstract thinking, or signs of impaired memory and attention span.[50]
Am I thinking about the wrong drug? What is that drug that is essentially made out of whatever can go in it?
That might be the Russian stuff you're thinking about, Krokodil. They put stuff like straight up gasoline in that. LSD is acid, the friend of the hippy for decades!
d-usa wrote: LSD doesn't mess you up as much as you will mess up everyone you deal with while you are high.
That's why my house is set up to be nice and tranquil for tripping purposes! Why go to the unpredictability of outside when you can experience the whole universe in your house!
d-usa wrote: LSD doesn't mess you up as much as you will mess up everyone you deal with while you are high.
That's why my house is set up to be nice and tranquil for tripping purposes! Why go to the unpredictability of outside when you can experience the whole universe in your house!
whembly wrote: Fun fact... Elephant tranquilizer is in face PCP when used on humans.
Speaking of elephants and LSD:
While I'm not a scientist, I have read that LSD was the drug used in putting housecats down, so those articles make me wonder if the body/mind of an elephant is closer to that of felines than we thought?
I was under the impression LSD could fry your brain XD
My basic point is that I don't care much about drugs that will kill you eventually. People drink alcohol and die of liver failure 50 years later all the time. Meth seriously feths people up. I've seen what that gak can do to a human being in a very short time and its terrible. Krokodil is insane. No idea why anyone would willingly take that stuff.
It also has the benefit that legalizing the entry drugs puts them out in the open. We can get people with serious problems help more easily because the fear of legal punishment is removed and thus the number of people moving onto harder stuff can go down.
Sec. 554. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to carry out Operation Choke Point.
Passed by 204 Republicans and 117 Democrats. That's about as bipartisan as you can get in the House.
Operation Choke Point being
The program was started in 2013 to protect consumers by “choking” alleged fraudsters’ access to the banking system. The Justice Department essentially forces banks and third-party payment processors to stop accepting payments from companies that are considered “high risk” and are supposedly violating federal law.
However, the documents released by Issa’s committee show the federal government lumped the firearms industry in with other "high-risk" businesses including those dealing with pornography, drug paraphernalia, escort services, racist materials, Ponzi schemes and online gambling.
The program was started in 2013 to protect consumers by “choking” alleged fraudsters’ access to the banking system. The Justice Department essentially forces banks and third-party payment processors to stop accepting payments from companies that are considered “high risk” and are supposedly violating federal law.
However, the documents released by Issa’s committee show the federal government lumped the firearms industry in with other "high-risk" businesses including those dealing with pornography, drug paraphernalia, escort services, racist materials, Ponzi schemes and online gambling.
I thought the new "PC" term for Ponzi scheme was "Multi-Level Marketing"
Sec. 554. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to carry out Operation Choke Point.
Passed by 204 Republicans and 117 Democrats. That's about as bipartisan as you can get in the House.
Operation Choke Point being
The program was started in 2013 to protect consumers by “choking” alleged fraudsters’ access to the banking system. The Justice Department essentially forces banks and third-party payment processors to stop accepting payments from companies that are considered “high risk” and are supposedly violating federal law.
However, the documents released by Issa’s committee show the federal government lumped the firearms industry in with other "high-risk" businesses including those dealing with pornography, drug paraphernalia, escort services, racist materials, Ponzi schemes and online gambling.
Grey Templar wrote: The instant that money enters a bank with branches in multiple states it becomes Interstate commerce, and thus subject to federal regulation.
Is the ISC clause overreaching? Yeah.
But I am opposed to drugs of any kind being legalized, with exceptions for real medical needs for pain relief. And no, moderate arthritis and migraines shouldn't allow a doctor to give you a pot license.
It should be very severe things. Like chronic back pain which cannot be treated by other means. It should also be distributed like other medical drugs, not grown by the patient.
Actually it could be run as a private financial institution and be fine.
d-usa wrote: That bill is so specific that it is one "Operation Asphyxia Button" away from being worthless...
So... you saying Congress can't/shouldn't do these things?
I'm just saying that it's business as usual, nothing will change, the feds will be able to continue to do what they are already doing simply by giving it another name (if their solution really is as simplistic as "no money for Operation Choke Point"), but both parties get pretend they did something and pander to their constituents who are apparently falling for it left and right (pun intended).
d-usa wrote: That bill is so specific that it is one "Operation Asphyxia Button" away from being worthless...
So... you saying Congress can't/shouldn't do these things?
I'm just saying that it's business as usual, nothing will change, the feds will be able to continue to do what they are already doing simply by giving it another name (if their solution really is as simplistic as "no money for Operation Choke Point"), but both parties get pretend they did something and pander to their constituents who are apparently falling for it left and right (pun intended).
If they weren't legit businesses, then government could just use existing laws to just arrest the business owner.
The idea with Operation Chokepoint is to target businesses that have a legit front, but are heavily involved in crime in the back end. Payday loans, for instance, are legal, but the industry is full of connections to organised crime as it is a great way of moving stolen goods and laundering money. Most of the others it shouldn't be too hard to figure out how those industries tend towards criminal behaviour.
What government is doing is telling banks to track and record the transfers made by businesses in those industry, so government can better understand how money is moving through those companies, as it might raise a red flag or be useful evidence in building a case against those companies.
Now, that plan is controversial for fairly obvious reasons, and ultimately I'm not sure where I stand on it, but it is worth noting that in a lot of ways its actually a refinement of previous legal obligations on banks.
Orlanth wrote: People are complaining that postal sales of guns are 'heavily regulated'.
The horror, now if it was something dangerous like milk, or tampons or toothpaste then I could understand heavy regulation, but guns; why, what could possibly go wrong?
A Brit for gun control?
Brits are mostly for gun control, some went way too far.
The correct legislation came in after Hungerford, the knee jerk legislation came in after Dunblane. It was entirely politically motivated, dogmatised and stigmatised gun ownership in the UK. It also directly and indirectly led to rise in gun related crime.
The US is still too laise faire on gun control though. Methinks if you took a halfway point between the Blairites and the NRA you would get some fairly decent gun laws.
I have to say, though, alcohol kills far more people than guns in the course of a year, even if you don't take into account the ones killed in traffic accidents or the statistics that show 2 out of 3 cases of domestic and child abuse are alcohol related. Should distillers and brewers not be allowed to bank?
I have to say, though, alcohol kills far more people than guns in the course of a year, even if you don't take into account the ones killed in traffic accidents or the statistics that show 2 out of 3 cases of domestic and child abuse are alcohol related. Should distillers and brewers not be allowed to bank?
That would effectively shut down entire counties of the US, as there are places in (especially) Kentucky and Tennessee whose ONLY money making is whiskey.
Relapse wrote: I have to say, though, alcohol kills far more people than guns in the course of a year, even if you don't take into account the ones killed in traffic accidents or the statistics that show 2 out of 3 cases of domestic and child abuse are alcohol related. Should distillers and brewers not be allowed to bank?
First up - holy gak we've the alcohol vs guns thing so many damn times already.
Second up, gun and ammo retailers are allowed to bank. The issue is that the industry as a whole has been flagged as having connections to criminal behaviour (and it really, really shouldn't be too hard to figure out why that is the case), and that's led to the industry getting flagged for additional scrutiny of their banking records, and in some cases the additional requirements on banks are enough that banks aren't bothering to work with some retailers. Now, that's problematic and there's plenty of scope in it to argue against the Federal program, but to describe it as not being allowed to bank is just plain wrong, and does nothing to advance the conversation.
Relapse wrote: I have to say, though, alcohol kills far more people than guns in the course of a year, even if you don't take into account the ones killed in traffic accidents or the statistics that show 2 out of 3 cases of domestic and child abuse are alcohol related. Should distillers and brewers not be allowed to bank?
First up - holy gak we've the alcohol vs guns thing so many damn times already.
Second up, gun and ammo retailers are allowed to bank. The issue is that the industry as a whole has been flagged as having connections to criminal behaviour (and it really, really shouldn't be too hard to figure out why that is the case), and that's led to the industry getting flagged for additional scrutiny of their banking records, and in some cases the additional requirements on banks are enough that banks aren't bothering to work with some retailers. Now, that's problematic and there's plenty of scope in it to argue against the Federal program, but to describe it as not being allowed to bank is just plain wrong, and does nothing to advance the conversation.
It shouldn't matter how many times it's brought up, since the comparison in hazard seems apt. Bullets and guns are said to have connections to criminal behavior, but it's a series of CDC statistics that alcohol has huge connections to criminal behavior.
Relapse wrote: It shouldn't matter how many times it's brought up, since the comparison in hazard seems apt.
The comparison is apt for a specific argument - that if it is possible to accept some level of overall harm for the benefit of a product, and the benefit of letting people make their own choices, then that argument can be made for guns just as it is made for alcohol. It doesn't mean that one making that argument successfully automatically means the other will pass, as each has wildly different benefits and uses to the other.
But that's all. Dragging it up every damn time we talk about guns isn't necessary or useful.
Bullets and guns are said to have connections to criminal behavior, but it's a series of CDC statistics that alcohol has huge connections to criminal behavior.
It isn't about whether the product might at some point in the future be related to criminal behaviour. It is about whether the individual retailers are likely to have any criminal connection, or be the victim of criminal action (ie goods purchased on fraudulent credit cards).
For the right wing noise, it is basically about requiring banks to build better records of transactions relating to industries with an historically higher relationship to crime. There is, as I've said a few times, a fair few good reasons to question the policy (and maybe even challenge it constitutionally), as it's basically stop and search for shops based just on their industry, but all this stuff the right wing is going on about how it's shutting down gun stores by stealth is basically deranged.
sebster wrote: First up - holy gak we've the alcohol vs guns thing so many damn times already.
Second up, gun and ammo retailers are allowed to bank. The issue is that the industry as a whole has been flagged as having connections to criminal behaviour (and it really, really shouldn't be too hard to figure out why that is the case), and that's led to the industry getting flagged for additional scrutiny of their banking records, and in some cases the additional requirements on banks are enough that banks aren't bothering to work with some retailers. Now, that's problematic and there's plenty of scope in it to argue against the Federal program, but to describe it as not being allowed to bank is just plain wrong, and does nothing to advance the conversation.
After the DoJ gave the Cartels lots of guns maybe they should have been added to the list
sebster wrote: First up - holy gak we've the alcohol vs guns thing so many damn times already.
Second up, gun and ammo retailers are allowed to bank. The issue is that the industry as a whole has been flagged as having connections to criminal behaviour (and it really, really shouldn't be too hard to figure out why that is the case), and that's led to the industry getting flagged for additional scrutiny of their banking records, and in some cases the additional requirements on banks are enough that banks aren't bothering to work with some retailers. Now, that's problematic and there's plenty of scope in it to argue against the Federal program, but to describe it as not being allowed to bank is just plain wrong, and does nothing to advance the conversation.
After the DoJ gave the Cartels lots of guns maybe they should have been added to the list
Relapse wrote: It shouldn't matter how many times it's brought up, since the comparison in hazard seems apt.
The comparison is apt for a specific argument - that if it is possible to accept some level of overall harm for the benefit of a product, and the benefit of letting people make their own choices, then that argument can be made for guns just as it is made for alcohol. It doesn't mean that one making that argument successfully automatically means the other will pass, as each has wildly different benefits and uses to the other.
But that's all. Dragging it up every damn time we talk about guns isn't necessary or useful.
Bullets and guns are said to have connections to criminal behavior, but it's a series of CDC statistics that alcohol has huge connections to criminal behavior.
It isn't about whether the product might at some point in the future be related to criminal behaviour. It is about whether the individual retailers are likely to have any criminal connection, or be the victim of criminal action (ie goods purchased on fraudulent credit cards).
For the right wing noise, it is basically about requiring banks to build better records of transactions relating to industries with an historically higher relationship to crime. There is, as I've said a few times, a fair few good reasons to question the policy (and maybe even challenge it constitutionally), as it's basically stop and search for shops based just on their industry, but all this stuff the right wing is going on about how it's shutting down gun stores by stealth is basically deranged.
Since the firearms industry is being flagged for having connections to the criminal element, distillers, brewers, and any place that sells alcohol should be also if you go by these numbers:
