Wrong Side of History, Part Deux

Seriously, why would ANYONE do business with Bank of America. First it was BofA’s refusal to do business with MacMillan Firearms, now this

All,
My name is Joe Sirochman owner of American Spirit Arms and I wanted to share my recent experience with Bank of America .(which we have been doing business with for over 10 years)…. Everyone is familiar with the latest increase in guns sales , dealers selling out of inventory , Manufacturers back logged for months , large revenue all generated in the last two weeks …. American Spirit Arms is no exception to the overwhelming demand . What we have experienced is that our web site orders have jumped 500 % causing our web site E commerce processing larger Deposits to BANK OF AMERICA ..Well, this through up a huge RED Flag with Bank of America . So they decided to hold the deposits for further review , meaning that the orders/payments that were coming in through the web ,( being paid by the customer and that were shipped out by American Spirit Arms ),the BANK was keeping (UNDER REVIEW )..as you could imagine this made me furious…After countless hours on the phone with BANK OF AMERICA I finally got a Manager in the right department that told me the reason that the deposits were on hold for FURTHER REVIEW …HER EXACT WORDS WERE … 
..” WE BELIEVE YOU SHOULD NOT BE SELLING GUNS and PARTS ON THE INTERNET “ 

Un-believe-able. The management of the Bank of America in our state needs to be held responsible for their opposition to civil rights, and that needs to happen now. 

And seriously, DO NOT BANK WITH THE BANK OF AMERICA! How many more of these “isolated incidents” will it take before we as a firearms community take our business elsewhere?

Comments

Wrong Side of History, Part Deux — 3 Comments

  1. One would ask why, after the McMillan issue, anyone gun related is doing business with BOA in the first place?

    Seriously.

  2. There is a cause of action in a court of law known as “conversion”. Conversion is a tort in which someone wrongfully denies a proprty owner the right and enjoyment of their ownership of an asset. It clearly applies here. And the remedies are quite nice in most jurisdictions.