Firearms Merchant Files Class Action Lawsuit against Online Payment Processors

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Firearms Merchant Files Class Action Lawsuit Against PayPal And Other Payment Processors

Blair Gladwin, owner of the California based Gladwin Guns and Ammo, filed three class action lawsuits last week against online payment processors PayPal, Stripe, and Square for singling out him and other firearms businesses.

The payment companies required Gladwin and the other owners to reveal the nature of their dealings — after which the payment companies refused to work with them.

Gladwin claims this type of discrimination is a violation of California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act Sections 51, 52(a) and 52(c), a law that protects federally-licensed gun stores from such refusals of business transactions.

The class action lawsuits, according to a press statement, are on behalf of himself and all federal firearms dealers who were barred from starting an account or had an account terminated by a payment processor because of the type of business they ran.

An interesting case. On the one hand, I do not approve of forcing anyone to do business with anyone else. But on the other hand, you are required to bake the damn cake. He is using the laws that exist (laws I don't necessarily approve of) to fight for his privileges under those laws. He's demanding that the laws as benefits others benefit himself in the same way. Pretty clever.

So ... should the electronic payment processors also bake the damn cake?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The law seems pretty clear, except for potentially in the case of the Paypal like company is HQ'd in another state, but it seems they are HQ'd in California. Geesh, based on all of the right-wing lies and bullshit, you'd think California wouldn't have a law that says as such.

As far as the cake crap, that was about the civil rights of customers (and your argument that parallels the anti-civil rights movement people), this case is about corporate rights as established by state law.

 

[dismal]

Jason -

You know the right answer because you have principles.

If you expect the cake-forcers to have principles you know you are going to be disappointed.

 

[Elixir]

Jason -

You know the right answer because you have principles.

If you expect the cake-forcers to have principles you know you are going to be disappointed.

This could have been grounds for a potentially productive discussion. Thanks for instantly devolving it into "us vs. them".

Ignoring that, I have another tidbit to contribute. Bankcard processors penalize people who sell "weapons", with higher rates and fees. We sell life-SAVING products (pre-hospital trauma treatments), and some of these items can be used as survival tools, or as weapons (e.g. knives, scalpels). Recently tried to change processors, having been suckered by an attractive rate offer, but upon review, they dumped us into a high-risk pool that includes sellers of AR15s. I objected, and pointed out that we were not so designated by our previous processor and serve EMS,tactical medics etc., but they wouldn't budge. No biggie for us - we simply went back to the old processor, since a fraction of a percentage point wouldn't be worth making much of a stink about it - certainly not worth getting lawyers involved.
So ... should these cake-forcers be obligated to conduct exhaustive reviews and come up with a fair offer for us dismal? Or should they be basically free to set whatever parameters they want for any vendor?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So ... should these cake-forcers be obligated to conduct exhaustive reviews and come up with a fair offer for us dismal? Or should they be basically free to set whatever parameters they want for any vendor?

dismal believes if a profit can be had by two "willing" partners, a profit shall be had.

 

[dismal]

So ... should these cake-forcers be obligated to conduct exhaustive reviews and come up with a fair offer for us dismal? Or should they be basically free to set whatever parameters they want for any vendor?

dismal believes if a profit can be had by two "willing" partners, a profit shall be had.

I believe in free and voluntary association. Profit or no profit.

 

[LordKiran]

dismal believes if a profit can be had by two "willing" partners, a profit shall be had.

I believe in free and voluntary association. Profit or no profit.

Does a customer purchasing goods and/or services from a company even count as association? Am I associated with Walmart if I buy a ten dollar fishing set there? Do note I'm not asking if this fits the textbook definition of 'association' but rather the legal purview of the bill of rights, which says this in artical 11:

1.Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
2.No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.

If anything the bill of rights seems to suggest the government has the authority to curtail your freedom of association in the defense of other people's rights and freedoms.

 

[dismal]

I believe in free and voluntary association. Profit or no profit.

Does a customer purchasing goods and/or services from a company even count as association?

Yes, of course. Why wouldn't it?

Am I associated with Walmart if I buy a ten dollar fishing set there? Do note I'm not asking if this fits the textbook definition of 'association' but rather the legal purview of the bill of rights, which says this in artical 11:

Who gives a shit? Not me. It has no bearing on what I believe should be.

 

[LordKiran]

Does a customer purchasing goods and/or services from a company even count as association?

Yes, of course. Why wouldn't it? [1]

Am I associated with Walmart if I buy a ten dollar fishing set there? Do note I'm not asking if this fits the textbook definition of 'association' but rather the legal purview of the bill of rights, which says this in artical 11:

Who gives a shit? Not me. It has no bearing on what I believe should be. [2]

1. Because the bill of rights disagrees with you?

2. If you're going to argue from some platform of constitutional ideology, it'd be beneficial to you to remain consistent with that position.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This is part of a deeper problem:

The Feds have been using payment processors as a way of destroying businesses.

If the payment processors don't go along they get unjust actions taken against them.

 

[dismal]

1. Because the bill of rights disagrees with you?

My statement had literally fuck-all to do with the Bill of Rights.

I said: 'I believe in free and voluntary association".

Unless I am mistaken and the Bill of Rights says somewhere in it "dismal does not believe in free and voluntary association" the Bill of Rights does not disagree with my statement.

And if the Bill of Rights did say "dismal does not believe in free and voluntary association", it would be wrong.

 

[LordKiran]

1. Because the bill of rights disagrees with you?

My statement had literally fuck-all to do with the Bill of Rights.

I said: 'I believe in free and voluntary association".

Unless I am mistaken and the Bill of Rights says somewhere in it "dismal does not believe in free and voluntary association" the Bill of Rights does not disagree with my statement.

And if the Bill of Rights did say "dismal does not believe in free and voluntary association", it would be wrong.

Do you feel better having vented your emotions though?

Point being, free association as defined legally, does not extend to business transactions unless you can point to a specific legal case that sets a precedent otherwise.

 

[dismal]

My statement had literally fuck-all to do with the Bill of Rights.

I said: 'I believe in free and voluntary association".

Unless I am mistaken and the Bill of Rights says somewhere in it "dismal does not believe in free and voluntary association" the Bill of Rights does not disagree with my statement.

And if the Bill of Rights did say "dismal does not believe in free and voluntary association", it would be wrong.

Do you feel better having vented your emotions though?

Point being, free association as defined legally, does not extend to business transactions unless you can point to a specific legal case that sets a precedent otherwise.

You seem to not understand basic logic.

Have a nice day.

 

[LordKiran]

Do you feel better having vented your emotions though?

Point being, free association as defined legally, does not extend to business transactions unless you can point to a specific legal case that sets a precedent otherwise.

You seem to not understand basic logic.

Have a nice day.

See you in the next thread!