McMillan Manufacturing and the BofA

I quit BoA years ago because of their policy of debiting your account BEFORE applying deposits. Make a deposit in the morning, make a bank card purchase in the afternoon, and get socked with a $35 overlimit fee because they deducted your purchase BEFORE they credited your deposit. :mad:
 
He who dances, must pay the fiddler !!!

Remember, BofA has accepted somewhere on the order of $135 Billion dollars of last years bail-out monies.
Click to expand...
I could see what was coming and closed out my account with them. That is also the day I was no longer a GM man and my next auto will be a FORD. This is pay-back with our tax dollars. .... :mad:

Gees, I'm getting tired of trying to dodge the Iiars, cheaters and Theives.

Be Safe !!!
 
Gary L. Griffiths said:
I quit BoA years ago because of their policy of debiting your account BEFORE applying deposits.
Click to expand...

Most banks cash all checks in the order of largest first. B of A is no different.

Let's say that you have $100 in the bank. You write three checks for thirty dollars and one check for $100. You screwed up to the tune of $90 overdrawn. If they were to cash the three checks for $30 each they would only bounce the one check for $100. If their NSF fee is $20 they get only $20.

Instead, they cash the $100 check first and bounce the three $30 checks and collect $60 in NSF fees.
 
Sorry. I guess we should leave that to McMillan which is moving its accounts to a better climate and rejecting all B of A card purchases from this time forward.
 
jimpeel said:
Sorry. I guess we should leave that to McMillan which is moving its accounts to a better climate and rejecting all B of A card purchases from this time forward.
Click to expand...

I read that rejecting only BOA credit cards may be expressly forbidden by MasterCard and Visa rules. So that policy may not be in effect yet, and may never be put into effect at all. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Also along that line. It would virtually impossible to block credit debit cards from any one particular bank may be next to impossible. Unless they do it at a POS level only.
 
I have to ask:

What does the Bank of America's action have to do with the US's 2nd Amendment?


I've seen it posted that this goes against the 2nd Amendment.

However, my understanding was that this piece of constitutional architecture was there to ensure that individual citizens were and are able to own and keep arms which, these days, essentially means guns.

How does this affect anyone's 2nd Amendment rights: it is a decision directed at one company, not the public.

This may be where my understanding of the 2nd Amendment lets me down.
I can see why some might be annoyed by a seemingly political decision, aimed at a manufacturer from the same country, but other than the fact it is a weapons manufacturer, it has not real effect on anyone's right to own, does it?

Can anyone shed light?
 
Last edited:
If BofA did have a policy against the firearms industry (which BofA denies), they have been violating the heck out of it.

A couple of weeks ago, BofA was part of a bank group that arranged $730 million in financing for the Freedom Group (Remington, Marlin, etc.).

On Friday (4/27), BofA was part of a bank group that arranged $265 million in financing for Olin Corporation (Winchester ammo).
 
Pond said:
...What does the Bank of America's action have to do with the US's 2nd Amendment?


I've seen it posted that this goes against the 2nd Amendment....
Click to expand...
It's simply that anyone saying something like that doesn't understand the Constitution. The Constitution regulates the conduct of government. It does not regulate private conduct. The BofA is a private business.
 
In 2000, Smith & Wesson ( a privately held company) entered into a consent decree with the US Government (a little known but separate consent decree was entered into with the City of Boston) under (then) President Clinton, in exchange for doing business in a certain manner, the Government declined to participate in certain ongoing lawsuits against S&W.

This sparked a nationwide ban on buying anything produced by S&W after the date of the decree. The boycott was so successful that within 3 years, the owners of S&W divested themselves of the company as being finacially unsound. An American holding company purchased S&W for a mere pittance.

The boycott "officially" ended at the 18th annual Gun Rights Policy Conference (GRPC) held in Houston, TX, Sept. 28, 2003. However, many still refused to purchase any S&W firearm made on or after 2000, for many years after the official boycott was ended. The decree with Boston was dissolved in mid 2002 (see http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=114158, also http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109365, for two of the many threads we had on this).

Frank said:
It's simply that anyone saying something like that doesn't understand the Constitution. The Constitution regulates the conduct of government. It does not regulate private conduct. The BofA is a private business.
Click to expand...

True, as far as it goes. Yet there are things that indirectly affect our rights, such as a major financial organization (not a group) revoking credit on minor players, that can have adverse impact on our rights.
 
Not to stir the pot, but I've only heard one side of the story. Has there been any statement from Bank of America clarifying this situation? Is it the policy of the corporation as a whole, or merely representative of a division or local office?
 
So, inconclusive. BoA claims no official aversion to doing business with the firearms industry. Part of me wonders if McMillan is generating more drama than necessary.
 
While only conjecture, I suspect that both McMillan and BofA are telling the truth.

According to McMillan's account, which seems perfectly credible, he offered the loan officer an easy way out of an otherwise awkward discussion - just agree with McMillan's characterization of what was happening and be gone. The loan officer's agreement with McMillan's conclusion does not mean that BofA really has a policy against banking the firearms industry. BofA would not have categorically denied such a policy if the statement was untrue; no company with a quarter-million employees could hide a lie of that nature.

The one fact not disputed by either side seems to be that BofA was ending its lending relationship with McMillan. The Federal Reserve is putting intense pressure on the largest banks to increase capital and reduce their risk of losses. One way the largest banks are meeting the Federal Reserve's requirements is to carefully assess the risk and profitability of all of the bank's business relationships and cull those clients at the bottom of the list. McMillan may simply not have been as profitable to BofA as some of the bigger names in the industry.
 
In 2000, Smith & Wesson ( a privately held company) entered ...
Click to expand...

That boycott worked only because of the limited market. Boycotting BOA is a bit of a joke.

Let's look at the original premise from McMillan. BOA doesn't want to do business with them. Their feelings got hurt. Why? Probably based they had a sweet business deal with BOA that they haven't been able to match elsewhere.

Keeping this gun related, I really liked the comment from Kelly McMillan on the FB page that said...
I think it is import for all Americans who believe in and support our 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms should know when a business does not support these rights.
Click to expand...

That's right Kelly, but why did this become a problem for McMillan just now? BOA has been known to be anti-gun since at least as early as 2001. Why didn't you drop them way back then if you thought the issue was so important? You didn't and continued to support anti-gun BOA for the last 11 years. I find the statement by Kelly to be very disengenuous.

Here are posts on this forum from 2001.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65707
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65518&highlight=bank+of+america
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66078&highlight=bank+of+america

The above are some of the earlier such internet notices I know about, but this is a theme repeated time after time with BOA over the years, but McMillan never seemed to notice, or did notice but didn't want to end the business relationship. So McMillan continued to support the anti-gun BOA until which time it was no longer in their best interest which apparently occured when BOA dumped them.

Do an advanced Google search for Bank of America boycott anti-gun that excludes the word McMillan. There are some 86000 hits and you can look back through time and see all the places, gun boards, hunting boards, competition shootind boards, and a lot of other non-gun boards where people support the 2A over the last 11 years.

I wil NOT boycott BOA because of this purported trajedy done to McMillan by them. You see, unlike McMillan, I dumped BOA in 2001.

So let me pose this to all of you who think BOA has done McMillan wrong and think you need to start boycotting now. Why weren't you already doing it?

I mentioned above that it was silly to boycott. That was in context to what happened to S&W. There are at least 15 current boycotts of BOA and at least 6 different groups that I have found online that are dedicated to boycotting BOA for various reasons...and yet BOA is the nations 2nd largest banking institution. Their position ranking in this regard has varied over the years as various banks come and go, have buyouts, etc., but since the boycott of BOA started in 2001, BOA has continued to grow. Even with all the other boycotts, BOA is growing.

Don't boycott BOA because of what they did to McMillan. McMillan has been happy to deal with BOA for 11 years despite its known anti-gun policies.

Don't boycott BOA because you think that your tiny little segment of the market is going to cause the to cave in to our demands. As near as I can tell, BOA hasn't succombed to any boycott of their institution and continues to thrive. We aren't going to be able to bring them down and based on the last 11 years, we won't change their mind either. Don't delude yourself in believing either of these will happen.

Do boycott BOA because it is the right thing to do. Don't be like McMillan was and supporting BOA, turning a blind eye to BOA's publically known anti-gun positions and then getting upset when BOA doesn't support you.

I really don't see how Kelly McMillan can make such a statement about how important it is to know that BOA is anti-gun. It never became important to McMillan over the last 11 years with numerous calls to boycott BOA until, of course, BOA dropped McMillan.
 
So, inconclusive. BoA claims no official aversion to doing business with the firearms industry. Part of me wonders if McMillan is generating more drama than necessary.
Click to expand...

Right, they aren't 100% anti-gun, and yes, McMillan is generating more drama than is necessary.
 
00 Spy said:
Boycotting BOA is a bit of a joke.
Click to expand...

Sure it is. I haven't called for a boycott, in case you didn't notice.

My response was to highlight a bit of history in regards to Franks statement. Nothing more. Nothing less.
 
Sure it is. I haven't called for a boycott, in case you didn't notice.
Click to expand...

Yep, and I haven't said that you called for a boycott, in case you didn't notice. However, the boycotting was thematic in your articles (McMillan's FB diatribe and the first news article's discussion) and successful boycotting noted in your discussion of S&W.

I did find it amusing that Kelly McMillan attempted to villify BOA's decision on the grounds that it was politicaly motivated, as if politically motivated business decisions are wrongful, but then makes the politically motivated decision to pull out from BOA, refuse their customers credit cards, and then purports to be doing a public service by letting the world know that BOA was anti-gun, and hence to follow McMillan's lead. Obviously, Kelly McMillan isn't trying to gain business for BOA or keep a neutral stance. She is trying to et others to follow her lead. Funny how when folks/companies make politically based business decisions we don't like that it is a bad thing, but when we do it, it is proper.
 
The Constitution regulates the conduct of government. It does not regulate private conduct. The BofA is a private business.
Click to expand...
Could BofA discriminate against a retailer or manufacturer of religious objects or books due to the nature of their business? If not, why not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top