Kinda looks like it, I'm thinking this might not be a smooth move, particularly given the business risk of pissing off gunowners, they're kinda well known for running effective boycotts. 

Ask the gun nut in your circle about Smith&Wesson's Deal With the Devil, where S&W agreed to deal offered by the Clinton Administration to enact a bunch of self-imposed gun control measures to avoid lawsuits. They faced a massive denunciation by the rest of the firearms industry, who had rejected similar deals, lobby groups, and massive boycotts by gunowners, the market flooded with used S&W's, they were being unloaded by pissed off gunowners.  Only when S&W was bought out and the Deal terminated did they get back on their feet. 

So what is Citi doing? They're refusing to allow transactions between FFLs (a federally licensed person who sells you a new firearm), and the manufacturers.  Which I guess means they'll either flock to new creditors or go to a cash system. 

Democrats have to hate this, the last thing they want or need politically speaking is gunowners being reminded of the 90s, when gun control measures were a major cause of their defeats.  They've been visibly backing off gun control, they know its a political loser.

I'll be curious about the legality of this, if there is some technical point that either side on this can argue, but I wonder if it'll even have to go that far if gunowners start galvanizing against Citi.

Posted by: doubleplusundead at 04:04 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 254 words, total size 2 kb.