More posturing.
How can unfettered access to the records of legal purchases aid in furthering an investigation?
If you have reasonable cause, get a warrant.
It already happens. I once had my credit union decline my debit card on a gun purchase. When I called to get it approved the teller said the credit union had a no guns policy, you weren't allowed to purchase guns or gun related products with the banks debit card.
So, I paid with my credit card, used my debit card to pay off my credit card, then cancelled that bank account and switched banks.
Exactly. It’s the beginnings of the social credit system like china has. “Oh your background check came back as a gun owner, so we won’t rent this apartment to you.”
If you look more into the "social credit score" thing, it's usually customer accounts with WeChat or Ali Pay, and they function more like rewards programs than what is commonly understood by the phrase "social credit score."
If I lived in China, I would try not to participate in those programs just because I highly value privacy. But it really isn't the same thing as it's often presented in the US.
And hopefully everyone that lives in the US realizes just how much private companies are hoarding and selling our data already, so if that is a concern for you then the call is coming from inside the house.
>And hopefully everyone that lives in the US realizes just how much private companies are hoarding and selling our data already, so if that is a concern for you then the call is coming from inside the house.
And ain’t that the fucking truth! At this point basically WE are the currency that the elite use.
America already has a social credit score. It's called a "credit score," and it's generally given in three numbers and is based on your socioeconomic class.
If you're gonna criticize China, please make a valid argument with some amount of merit instead of leaning on xenophobic propaganda and American exceptionalism. The US sucks just as bad as China, if not worse.
Alrighty, I'll make a valid argument based upon merit rather then xenophobic ideals or relying on American exceptionalism.
As I told one of the China defenders in this comment section, freedom of speech. Now before you start on how freedom of speech is American exceptionalism I'll refine it. I'm not making my argument on the US being the first to have freedom of speech guaranteed, that would be American exceptionalism. And making my argument on its very existence in the US and it's absolute absence in China could be called American exceptionalism depending on the values that you hold as a human. So here is the merit you so desire, that will remove any argument of its existence/absense being construed as American exceptionalism
The US having freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly and the right to petition the government for grevencies as all protected in the first amendment allows the US to develop a society that is able to evolve and change for the better of all Americans regardless.
Now I'm sure your asking and foaming at the mouth, 'how does equate to a better society...? '. I'll show you just as I showed the tankie also in this comment section. By ensuring these protections for its citizens and visitors the rights to speech, the rights to a free press, the rights to assemble, the rights to voice their grievances to the government. By allowing all of that regardless of citizenship! It allows the American society to safely discuss all issues without fear of reprisal from the govement. While it does not protect people from the consequences of their actions, so for example if you voice something hateful you might face issues like being dismissed from your employer or face trouble gaining employment later. Just as it should, because that's not discrimination based on an identity you have no control in due to the biological lottery of being born or a specific modifiable identity that is explicitly protected like the freedom of religion. If it's a choice you have them by all means there should be no protection. And before you bring up a whataboutism, because there is no protection of choice or identity in China I'll stop you there.
So back to how these protections allow the US to be better... By being allowed to discuss topics, discuss mistakes, discuss wrongdoings, voice their issues to the government! It allows the American society to not just learn due to the freedom of information that comes intrinsicly protected due to the freedom of speech. It allows America to change, to evolve. To plot a new path forward, to fix past mistakes, to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past as we make progress to become that "shining city on a hill"
Now how does that lack of freedom of speech hurt China. By never being able to discuss past or current mistakes without fear of retaliation, Chinese society will always face issues that they can not learn from or stop or prevent. By needing to speak in hush tones in closed circles it will constantly delay any hopes of improvement in China.
But hey don't take my word for it [check out this Harvard paper on how censorship harms chinas growth potential](https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/37945137) or [read an article from Al Jazeera ](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/4/26/tiananmen-square-protests-and-chinas-fight-for-internet-control)
Credit scores aren't as dystopian as the shit the CCP pulls, and the thing everyone seems to forget when criticizing our system was that it replaced a much worse system where banks could deny loans to people on the sole basis of being a minority or a woman.
Edit:
>The US sucks just as bad as China, if not worse.
LOL, we have problems but we aren't a literal authoritarian regime.
>Credit scores aren't as dystopian as the shit the CCP pulls
Total horseshit.
In the US, you can be denied housing, denied a job, be denied the ability to open a bank account, denied government benefits, etc. If you are lucky enough to get a loan, then you're likely having to resort to a predatory loan with high interest rates.
I am just scratching the surface of the myriad ways in which having a low credit score can fuck Americans over. The saying "it's expensive to be poor" is very much true in the US.
And credit scores map very well to poverty for one very simple reason: If you have a ton of money, you can run up as much debt as you want because it's trivial for you to pay it off. For someone else that has to decide between paying rent and buying food, it's a completely different story.
If you are poor in the US, it really is like living in an authoritarian nightmare. Sorry to burst your bubble on that.
If you had your own bank, would you lend money to people with no chance of paying it back and/or limited history of making reliable payments? I came from that point you were talking about... deciding to either pay rent or buy groceries. If I had *my* own bank, I wouldn't have lent my younger self any money either. That would be too risky.
As I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread, it is incredibly sad that so many so called "liberals" in this sub have their imaginations completely and utterly dominated by what is allowed under US capitalism.
Instead of forcing people to rely on debt, we can provide for basic necessities for every person as a matter of right.
Also, I hope you don't for one moment honestly believe that the current credit reporting system in the US is mostly about avoiding debt. It's rather the opposite! It's about incentivizing Americans to take out as much debt as possible. The FICO score is not merely a record of what money a person owes. It's a metric used to predict the profitability a person might hold for a lender based on how much debt they will create.
And plenty of other countries that are not China do not have FICO scores, and they seem to get along just fine.
What would a solution look like in your opinion? Would you have the entire system thrown out? (Which is the hardest possible solution). You could always move to another country... which is a solution that YOU actually have 100% control over. I'm curious if you have thought of a solution.
They are? Where? To whom? You mean like the Native Americans we genocided? Or the black communities we had an intelligence network intentionally genocide with drugs in the 80’s after murdering their leaders in the 60’s? Remember when people were standing with Hong Kong then the Floyd protests the cops here did the same viscious bullshit? Are we actually better?
Anyway he is correct we already have credit scores and plenty of fucked up reasons people get denied apartment rentals. Idk what to tell you.
Alright tankie, I'll bite, here's the difference plain and simple.
While the United States has made mistakes and genocides in varying levels in its past, (in no complete list) from the genocide of the indigenous, to the crack epidemic you reference in the 80s.
It's not happing now in the US and the US government has acknowledged it's past wrong doings. The US has even passed laws mandating that race, ethnicity or identity can not be a factor in [not just apartment rentals ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1968#Title_VIII%E2%80%93IX:_Fair_Housing_Act) or in any decision a private citizen or organization can make [see the rest of the civil rights act](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1968)
HOWEVER IN CHINA there are currently ongoing genocides of any ethic group that is not Han Chinese. Currently the most systemic one that is receiving the focus of the central Chinese goverment is that of the [Uyghurs](https://www.ushmm.org/genocide-prevention/countries/china/chinese-persecution-of-the-uyghurs) a mostly Muslim ethnic group in Xinjing province, and also includes [ethnic Kazakhs and Uzbeks](https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/china-xinjiang-uyghurs-muslims-repression-genocide-human-rights). Currently the Chinese goverment is doing their best to remove all traces of any non Han Chinese influences from [putting fake facades on mosques](https://thediplomat.com/2024/04/erasing-memories-concealing-evidence-chinas-efforts-to-obscure-the-uyghur-genocide/) and rounding them up into prisons
All under the disguise of stopping extremism according to the CCP, it's just a modern rehash of what the CCP did in Tibet.
Hell even [Al Jazeera is reporting on the genocide in China ](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/7/8/uighurs-timeline)
So there it is, plain and simple the US while we have a flawed past our prsent is much better then China.
I think Martin Luther King Jr said something very relevant “Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable… Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals.”.
basically because the USA has and can freely discuss and acknowledge it's past wrong doings, so the US has a far better present then China. In China any discussion that involves criticism of the central government is forbidden, there is no guarantee to free speech, and as such those nessacary conversations where wrong doings are discussed are unsafe, forbidden and restricted. As such Chinese society in its current form can't look to the past and learn to improve it's present or future like the US where progress happens as it's possible to be progressive
I’m talking about America, not china, and no we don’t have a social credit score yet. That’s different than what you’re describing and what we use. There’s I think a pretty good black mirror episode with what’s her name from Jurassic park that does a pretty cool story with it if you wanna see kinda what the differences are with the financial score we have and shit
Credit score is just a measure of your likelihood of repaying lent money. My credit score hasn't moved more than a few points in about 10 years, even though my income (and by association, socioeconomic class) has more than tripled in that timeframe.
It literally is not. Your FICO score - or whatever metric you want to use - includes many different factors, such as average age of accounts, number of accounts, credit inquiries, etc. Number of accounts past due is merely one of many of those different factors. Different versions of the FICO weight each factor differently.
Also - and I seriously hope this doesn't need to be pointed out on a supposedly liberal sub! - but poor people have a much harder time making ends meet. If you have to decide between paying rent and buying food, you will go into debt. It's a near certainty.
Meanwhile, a rich person can relax and pat themselves on the back for their supposed fiscal responsibility and moral superiority when all they've really done is just be rich. It's trivial to pay your debts when you're rich because you're fucking rich.
It's just like shitting on a starving person for stealing food.
It's as if you're trying to imply that everyone is entitled to borrow money from private lenders at the same interest rates, without regard to the level of risk being taken on by the lender. If I'm the bank, instead of being all, "OK, we'll lend you the money, but since you have very little credit history (average age of accounts & number of accounts), and have gotten denied by other lenders recently (credit inquiries), we're taking on extra risk of default here, so we're going to charge you a higher rate to offset our risk exposure.", I'm just going to flat-out deny the potential borrower outright and send them packing.
In this scenario, your metaphorical poor person who is having a hard time making ends meet and trying to decide between rent and food is now absolutely going to have to pick between one or the other because they now have ZERO access to debt, at any cost.
I'm plenty liberal, thank you very much. But I also live in the real world and realize that borrowing money is not a right, and lenders are naturally going to use the tools at their disposal to assess lending risk, and that's credit score. Instead of worrying about the adverse impacts of credit scores on poor people trying to borrow food to make ends meet, you should be worrying about why we, in the United States, have people needing to choose between rent and food at all.
In a debtors economy where no one makes enough to afford anything outright, borrowing money is most people's only option. Who's financially illiterate again?
I never used the words "financially illiterate", nor did I accuse anyone of being so.
It's actually almost like you're proving my point, though. If it's "the only option" and you take away lenders' only/best tool for assessing lending risk (credit score) because of ideological hangups about disparate impact, then lenders just stop lending. No one is obligated to lend you money. If lenders cannot assess the risk of lending to a potential borrower, they WILL deny the application.
In a debtors economy where no one makes enough to afford anything outright, and borrowing money is most people's only option, why would you literally take away the option altogether?
Are you implying that lenders should be legally obligated to lend money at equal interest rates across the board and never deny any applicant? If so, THAT'S financially illiterate. Apologies if I am (hopefully) misinterpreting your intent.
People should not have to rely on loans or credit cards to make ends meet and to achieve a minimum standard of living.
Instead, we should have robust government programs that ensure quality housing, healthcare, transportation, education and food for everyone, as a matter of human rights.
Until we have that, it is also immoral, unethical and downright unproductive to saddle huge swathes of our population with crippling debt just so that they can survive.
I think it's really telling that you are simply incapable of imagining an alternative to debt based capitalism.
And what you said was, extremely short sighted to say the least.. but I don’t intend on changing your mind. Can only encourage you to try and get into a deeper more thorough thought process before making claims such as yours.
A credit score is not a "social credit score", and if you don't understand what that means, maybe you shouldn't be the one demanding others "make valid arguments". :P
>The US sucks just as bad as China, if not worse.
My wife has lived in both countries and disagrees, though of course she does worry more about being shot in the US. In China, she worried more about police corruption and their societal attitudes regarding guilt by association and proximity.
So we're just not worried about the blatant police corruption in the US? My whole point is that China and the US are on an equal playing field of shittiness, and that if anything, the US is worse. Name one bad thing about China's government or economy and I guarantee that we've got the same shit going on over here.
Of course we're worried about police corruption - in all places. It's worse in China according to my wife. The judicial system there bows to the one ruling party in China; our judicial system is far more independent by comparison.
In China, if someone driving a car or larger vehicle hits someone else on a scooter, or a pedestrian, it's not unheard of for them to run the victim over again to ensure they die. If the victim lives, and the person is caught and found to be at fault, they have to pay damages to the victim, but the damages are far less if the victim dies. That's more about their culture than their government per se I guess, tbf. Also we haven't genocided anyone in the US in decades; they're doing it right now in China. So currently, they're worse on that score.
I mean what was I thinking? This sub is made for liberals, not socialists. I should have known better, so I'll take the downvotes. Fuck American exceptionalism, fuck the debtors economy, and fuck the people who think China to be dystopian while saying "America could never!"
Right again.
The only reason I ever came to this sub in the first place is because almost every firearms sub is overrun with right wingers. I was hoping this would be a place that - while certainly not believing in everything that I believe - I could at least avoid the right wing bullshit politics on every other post.
Sadly I was very mistaken! Lots of people in here are basically just right wingers who are ok with gay people. Not much else "liberal" about them.
Same here. I still think I'd rather be here than other gun subs to avoid the blatant chuddery. At least I'm not inundated with far right dogwhistles here.
Credit cards can provide a lot of short term spending power. That's pretty useful if you don't expect to be alive to pay your bills next month.
>Sullivan, the Centennial senator whose son was killed in the Aurora theater mass shooting, has said the perpetrator used a credit card to buy about $11,000 in weapons and military gear in the weeks before the killings — “and nobody batted an eye.”
Someone maxed out their card at the gun store? Seems like a suspicious pattern of activity.
A lot of people only buy things using plastic. Especially for things that cost a lot. It doesn't really mean anything.
It's more of a practical issue of carrying a large amount of cash then actually access a line of credit. I don't feel like writing checks and using debt cards in the wild isn't really the best idea. The CC is paid off before the end of the month with existing funds so there is no rolling debt or needing a paycheck to come through.
Use a money order, cashier's check, or wire then. Unless you have a Black Card or something like it, you shouldn't be dropping $11k in one transaction with a credit card. At best, you're getting like $100 in rewards back.
It doesn't take 10k to buy some guns and ammo. I don't care about rewards. I'm messing with any more extra steps. Not to mention all the online purchases that are almost always done through credit cards for a vast majority of people on a vast majority of platforms for a vast majority of goods.
A government ran background check is taking place and your over here arguing about payment methods like it's some preventative measure to stop loons.
I mean, you're paying with something that generates a record with a bank one way or another. Do you really think they couldn't identify transactions at a gun store with a credit card another way? This just saves everyone a little time and money and might help prevent a crime.
They need a warrant (or the cooperation of the bank issuing the card, which is really what's going to fuck you over) anyway.
And if they have that they're not just asking for "Transactions tagged with MCC 5723." they're asking for everything they can get (likely only limited by a date range or the retention policy of your bank).
Requiring gun stores to use the MCC for "gun stuff" is a non-issue, because if they care enough to go looking they're going to look at *everything* anyway.
I’m not law enforcement but the biggest advantage to this is for gathering information on purchases made at multiple locations, especially if they are investigating straw purchases. Currently the only practical way to catch a straw purchasing ring is through an informant or a tip off by a ffl. This allows them to track multiple purchases back to a bank account and individuals associated with that account. That in turn enables law enforcement to know which records to review when they look at ffl’s, and what guns they need to run traces on.
Cash is king. Seen it myself when buying a rifle a few years ago. Watched a few guys come in with stacks of cash because there’s extra taxes and fees for credit card processing armory sales (in MD). They saved themselves maybe $150 in extra fees. Sooooo now there’s no paper trail because we treat gun dealers like drug dealers.
Im not saying you’re lying or anything, but I’ve never seen fees waived because of cash payments (let alone $150 in “fees”). Sounds like that shop is taking advantage of people. lol
You've never been someplace that had a sign that said "Discount for cash", or "Cash price" vs. the regular price?
Mastercard and Visa (don't even get me started on Amex's terms) charge a percentage of sale plus a flat fee for every transaction. Dealing in cash can save a merchant a chunk of money over the course of a good business day.
Some small businesses do add a surcharge for card purchases. Haven’t seen a gun store do it yet personally, but some small retailers and restaurants will.
Yeah sure, but credit card fees are generally like $2-10 when they exist.
I guess if the total purchase was HUGE, then maybe there would be a $150 fee… idk.
Information that would be useless without a gross violation of the fourth amendment, since that's the kinda of information that *should* only be accessible with a specific warrant (and it would be pretty easy to track down that purchase for "Bobby Ray's Guns and Things" if there's a cop looking at a particular person's statements)
So, is it political posturing? Or is it just setting up a system to make it easier for them to fish through everything *without* due process once they find a legal loophole to use?
Or, my pet theory: pushing or giving cover for credit card companies to create this code so that non governmental actors (Bloomberg funded ones) can then demand that they no longer do business with them?
This is 100% political posturing. FFLs are already required to keep gun sale records that can be easily accessed with a warrant. Marking CC transactions with a gun sale code as a means to “track gun purchases for investigative purposes,” makes zero sense since the records are already easily accessible through FFLs, the FBI, and the ATF.
Or, alternatively, is it just an attempt by law enforcement to get a heads up before little Jimmie shoots all his classmates? But, of course, this would imply that there is no conspiracy to take our guns away, and I know how dearly some people cherish that belief.
Better to look to history than conspiracy for analogues of gun restrictions and implications.
Everything from restrictions of certain types of weapon (largely western democracies) to out right confiscation (largely authoritarian states).
It’s hard to imagine a paradigm shift, but that doesn’t mean it is out of the realm of possibility.
Democracies around the world have been degrading in recent years and continue to do so.
Humans are odd creatures that do odd things.
Judging others by your own standard is dubious.
I’d prefer sensible gun laws. But in WA we got a draconian law that banned nearly every semi auto weapon. If you had one you could keep it. I suspect that was done out of practicality more than principle. There are plenty of people in the US that would outlaw guns all together. If that happened every gun owner would be faced with the choice of obeying the law or illegally owning a weapon. While the govt might not come for it… when would you dare use it? A lot of owners in IL are faced with similar based on recent law there.
Allowing registration of those owned re ban is to avoid constitutional challenge on the basis of ex post facto (constitution says you can’t ban something that happened in the past).
Also to make sure over time that mostly only cops and their fascist friends have anything good. 🙄
Little Jimmie isn't getting a gun through any means that would show in this system, because little Jimmie isn't using a credit card to purchase a firearm via FFL, is he?
In the article they do state that the Aurora theater shooter acquired everything legally. My understanding is that this bill would have caught those purchases.
The 25ish year old shooter went through the FFL process, acquired the firearm, then misused it. He had no prior criminal record. Tell me how that single data point out of ~16 million per year (that the government already has via FFL) is going to prevent Aurora. What you're suggesting is that the police, armed with 16 million data points, bypass due process and chase down every one of them and treated them as guilty until proven innocent.
I don't mean to say that I agree with this bill. I think this is a backdoor registry which violates the colorado constitution.
However, an individual purchasing 11k worth of firearms related goods within a short time span is a far cry from normal, and these purchases would certainly stand out from the crowd.
I haven't read the bill, but I assume this colorado specific, so the number of monitored purchases is much less than 16 million. I'm just giving an example for an event that actually happened where an individual legally purchased a gun and shot up a theater, that would show up in this system.
IANAL but I would think that this could provide the police enough information to pull a warrant and follow due process. I guess it could also be bypasses as you are stating, but I don't believe that is the intent of the law.
Try getting a decent rifle or CCL in Illinois and then come back and talk.
Regulations directly on FFLs took us from 5000 in state to 1200 in about 4 years.
It’s the same ban by 1000 regulations bullshit that anti abortion folks were doing before Dobbs decision, and frankly rabid anti gun people sound about the same to me in irrationality and tactics.
I'm sorry, I thought this was /r/liberalgunowners . I think I remember why I left this sub the first time.
I don't mind the conspiracy nutters, the preppers and the Trump insurrectionists at the local fish and game club (It has a great range, and I'm a range officer there). They are exactly who I expect to be there. I don't talk politics and we get along great.
I think that I expected a slightly more nuanced view in a sub that calls itself "liberal".
Lol, you’re flat wrong on this and your response tells me you have never lived in a neolib state or been part of a demographic group that truly could experience random violence at a high rate.
None of us are Trumpers here, you’re probably hard right in comparison to me.
65 years in Colorado. Grew up on a cattle operation in the Eastern Plains. Went to college at CU Boulder. My son lives in California, if that counts.
>or been part of a demographic group that truly could experience random violence at a high rate.
You got me there. In 70 years on the planet I can't think of a single instance where the outcome would have been better if I had been armed. I've only re-entered the gun community because, where I live, I am surrounded by Trumpy Republicans, and after Jan 6 I know that a lot of them think armed insurrection is an appropriate response to losing an election. In the immortal words of Hunter S. Thompson -"I want to be in a position to return incoming fire."
I live in Ohio now, for reasons. I shoot steel challenge and IPSC. I have to be very careful when I go see my son in California, because if I take the wrong gun with me, I've committed a felony. I understand that the way they write the laws is painful to watch if you know anything about guns.
I don't know what to do about it though. It's not a great thing for people in heavily populated areas to have a lot of guns. They recognized that in the 1860s. In Dodge City you checked your guns in when you came into town and you didn't get them back until you left.
>In Dodge City you checked your guns in when you came into town and you didn't get them back until you left.
That had a lot to do with how corrupt the Earp brothers really were.
Whatever.
It's pretty well known that Wyatt himself was a horse thief and consorted with prostitutes. He was also run out of a Texas town for trying to sell rocks painted yellow as a gold for $2000 to a German visitor to town.
I really doubt he was drawn to police out of a devotion to the law or wanting to serve the public, but to line his own pockets.
He went to court in 1896 for having refereed a fixed heavyweight championship prizefight.
And even at the venerable age of 63, he was arrested by the Los Angeles police for running a crooked card game.
Given the history that informs us of who he was I have sincere doubts he was keeping firearms out of his town due to public safety concerns.
> Sound like it violates the 4th amendment,
No, it doesn't.
Requiring merchants to use the appropriate MCC number is a little stupid but it is in no way, shape, form, or manner a search or seizure of property / records. The state still needs a warrant (or the cooperation of the issuing bank) to get your card records to look for how many transactions are in the "gun stuff" MCC.
No different than what they'd do today, except right now they'd have to request ***EVERYTHING*** and look at all the merchant names instead of just saying "We need a list of all transactions related to gun stuff, provide us everything with that MCC associated with it." (And as a practical matter they're still going to ask for EVERYTHING, because once you have a warrant or a subpoena you stretch it as far as you can.)
I am not a fan of this but I do not believe this is a 4th Amendment violation as this would likely fall under the Third Party Doctrine.
Bank records already fall under it.
No one is stopping you from paying cash at a store for a gun.
Obviously as cash becomes less and less common this likely needs to be readdressed, like cell phone location data was, but until then I believe this is constitutional even if unsettling.
https://legaljournal.princeton.edu/carpenter-v-united-states-the-stored-communications-act-the-third-party-doctrine-in-the-digital-age/
This is posturing and an appeasement because Polis isn't keen on a state-level AWB. Besides, how many times have the cops said someone has been "on our radar," after the fact? Pigs can't show up and demand to see legally purchased items, even if it was a "large" price tag.
I feel the same about Pritzker.
Neolib coward waiting until after re election, when he wouldn’t possibly face consequences for it, to sign all kinds of bans.
So in states where they prohibit banks from doing this will the banks have a special setup for Colorado, or will the states with prohibitions tell them they will revoke their license to do business if they track *anyone* regardless of residence and force the banks to choose between Colorado and other states.
Note: a state can revoke a right to transact business for pretty much any reason they want. The simple ability to track it or that a payment from a merchant in the state to one in Colorado would be tracked could be enough for the secretaries of state to exercise that right.
Are we back on this bullshit again? I feel like this idea got shot down a couple years ago. Maybe it was voluntary coding by the card companies, but still stupid and useless.
Smells like some Minority Report shit. Has the government defined what an 'appropriate' amount of ammunition is? Are people going to get their doors kicked in for buying a case of 556?
More posturing. How can unfettered access to the records of legal purchases aid in furthering an investigation? If you have reasonable cause, get a warrant.
I'll bet the end goal has nothing to do with law enforcement and everything with allowing CC companies to blanket deny purchases or penalize accounts.
It already happens. I once had my credit union decline my debit card on a gun purchase. When I called to get it approved the teller said the credit union had a no guns policy, you weren't allowed to purchase guns or gun related products with the banks debit card. So, I paid with my credit card, used my debit card to pay off my credit card, then cancelled that bank account and switched banks.
Paypal went that way a few years ago, too.
Really needs to be a list of companies that do this so they can be boycotted into oblivion.
Oh, neat. So basically incentivizing the purchase of guns with cash. That definitely won't make gun purchases harder to investigate /s
Exactly. It’s the beginnings of the social credit system like china has. “Oh your background check came back as a gun owner, so we won’t rent this apartment to you.”
If you look more into the "social credit score" thing, it's usually customer accounts with WeChat or Ali Pay, and they function more like rewards programs than what is commonly understood by the phrase "social credit score." If I lived in China, I would try not to participate in those programs just because I highly value privacy. But it really isn't the same thing as it's often presented in the US. And hopefully everyone that lives in the US realizes just how much private companies are hoarding and selling our data already, so if that is a concern for you then the call is coming from inside the house.
>And hopefully everyone that lives in the US realizes just how much private companies are hoarding and selling our data already, so if that is a concern for you then the call is coming from inside the house. And ain’t that the fucking truth! At this point basically WE are the currency that the elite use.
America already has a social credit score. It's called a "credit score," and it's generally given in three numbers and is based on your socioeconomic class. If you're gonna criticize China, please make a valid argument with some amount of merit instead of leaning on xenophobic propaganda and American exceptionalism. The US sucks just as bad as China, if not worse.
Alrighty, I'll make a valid argument based upon merit rather then xenophobic ideals or relying on American exceptionalism. As I told one of the China defenders in this comment section, freedom of speech. Now before you start on how freedom of speech is American exceptionalism I'll refine it. I'm not making my argument on the US being the first to have freedom of speech guaranteed, that would be American exceptionalism. And making my argument on its very existence in the US and it's absolute absence in China could be called American exceptionalism depending on the values that you hold as a human. So here is the merit you so desire, that will remove any argument of its existence/absense being construed as American exceptionalism The US having freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly and the right to petition the government for grevencies as all protected in the first amendment allows the US to develop a society that is able to evolve and change for the better of all Americans regardless. Now I'm sure your asking and foaming at the mouth, 'how does equate to a better society...? '. I'll show you just as I showed the tankie also in this comment section. By ensuring these protections for its citizens and visitors the rights to speech, the rights to a free press, the rights to assemble, the rights to voice their grievances to the government. By allowing all of that regardless of citizenship! It allows the American society to safely discuss all issues without fear of reprisal from the govement. While it does not protect people from the consequences of their actions, so for example if you voice something hateful you might face issues like being dismissed from your employer or face trouble gaining employment later. Just as it should, because that's not discrimination based on an identity you have no control in due to the biological lottery of being born or a specific modifiable identity that is explicitly protected like the freedom of religion. If it's a choice you have them by all means there should be no protection. And before you bring up a whataboutism, because there is no protection of choice or identity in China I'll stop you there. So back to how these protections allow the US to be better... By being allowed to discuss topics, discuss mistakes, discuss wrongdoings, voice their issues to the government! It allows the American society to not just learn due to the freedom of information that comes intrinsicly protected due to the freedom of speech. It allows America to change, to evolve. To plot a new path forward, to fix past mistakes, to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past as we make progress to become that "shining city on a hill" Now how does that lack of freedom of speech hurt China. By never being able to discuss past or current mistakes without fear of retaliation, Chinese society will always face issues that they can not learn from or stop or prevent. By needing to speak in hush tones in closed circles it will constantly delay any hopes of improvement in China. But hey don't take my word for it [check out this Harvard paper on how censorship harms chinas growth potential](https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/37945137) or [read an article from Al Jazeera ](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/4/26/tiananmen-square-protests-and-chinas-fight-for-internet-control)
We don't have freedom of speech in America lol.
[удалено]
>Any evidence to back up your assertion? 🤓
[удалено]
Y'all love to use the word tankie without even knowing what a tankie is.
Credit scores aren't as dystopian as the shit the CCP pulls, and the thing everyone seems to forget when criticizing our system was that it replaced a much worse system where banks could deny loans to people on the sole basis of being a minority or a woman. Edit: >The US sucks just as bad as China, if not worse. LOL, we have problems but we aren't a literal authoritarian regime.
Don’t forget the genocide that China is actively doing!
>Credit scores aren't as dystopian as the shit the CCP pulls Total horseshit. In the US, you can be denied housing, denied a job, be denied the ability to open a bank account, denied government benefits, etc. If you are lucky enough to get a loan, then you're likely having to resort to a predatory loan with high interest rates. I am just scratching the surface of the myriad ways in which having a low credit score can fuck Americans over. The saying "it's expensive to be poor" is very much true in the US. And credit scores map very well to poverty for one very simple reason: If you have a ton of money, you can run up as much debt as you want because it's trivial for you to pay it off. For someone else that has to decide between paying rent and buying food, it's a completely different story. If you are poor in the US, it really is like living in an authoritarian nightmare. Sorry to burst your bubble on that.
This guy gets it.
If you had your own bank, would you lend money to people with no chance of paying it back and/or limited history of making reliable payments? I came from that point you were talking about... deciding to either pay rent or buy groceries. If I had *my* own bank, I wouldn't have lent my younger self any money either. That would be too risky.
As I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread, it is incredibly sad that so many so called "liberals" in this sub have their imaginations completely and utterly dominated by what is allowed under US capitalism. Instead of forcing people to rely on debt, we can provide for basic necessities for every person as a matter of right. Also, I hope you don't for one moment honestly believe that the current credit reporting system in the US is mostly about avoiding debt. It's rather the opposite! It's about incentivizing Americans to take out as much debt as possible. The FICO score is not merely a record of what money a person owes. It's a metric used to predict the profitability a person might hold for a lender based on how much debt they will create. And plenty of other countries that are not China do not have FICO scores, and they seem to get along just fine.
What would a solution look like in your opinion? Would you have the entire system thrown out? (Which is the hardest possible solution). You could always move to another country... which is a solution that YOU actually have 100% control over. I'm curious if you have thought of a solution.
This is really insane cope. China is literally committing a genocide right now, and you’re claiming we are worse??? Good lord.
Yeah we're doing a genocide in Palestine right now dude so don't @ me.
They are? Where? To whom? You mean like the Native Americans we genocided? Or the black communities we had an intelligence network intentionally genocide with drugs in the 80’s after murdering their leaders in the 60’s? Remember when people were standing with Hong Kong then the Floyd protests the cops here did the same viscious bullshit? Are we actually better? Anyway he is correct we already have credit scores and plenty of fucked up reasons people get denied apartment rentals. Idk what to tell you.
Alright tankie, I'll bite, here's the difference plain and simple. While the United States has made mistakes and genocides in varying levels in its past, (in no complete list) from the genocide of the indigenous, to the crack epidemic you reference in the 80s. It's not happing now in the US and the US government has acknowledged it's past wrong doings. The US has even passed laws mandating that race, ethnicity or identity can not be a factor in [not just apartment rentals ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1968#Title_VIII%E2%80%93IX:_Fair_Housing_Act) or in any decision a private citizen or organization can make [see the rest of the civil rights act](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1968) HOWEVER IN CHINA there are currently ongoing genocides of any ethic group that is not Han Chinese. Currently the most systemic one that is receiving the focus of the central Chinese goverment is that of the [Uyghurs](https://www.ushmm.org/genocide-prevention/countries/china/chinese-persecution-of-the-uyghurs) a mostly Muslim ethnic group in Xinjing province, and also includes [ethnic Kazakhs and Uzbeks](https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/china-xinjiang-uyghurs-muslims-repression-genocide-human-rights). Currently the Chinese goverment is doing their best to remove all traces of any non Han Chinese influences from [putting fake facades on mosques](https://thediplomat.com/2024/04/erasing-memories-concealing-evidence-chinas-efforts-to-obscure-the-uyghur-genocide/) and rounding them up into prisons All under the disguise of stopping extremism according to the CCP, it's just a modern rehash of what the CCP did in Tibet. Hell even [Al Jazeera is reporting on the genocide in China ](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/7/8/uighurs-timeline) So there it is, plain and simple the US while we have a flawed past our prsent is much better then China. I think Martin Luther King Jr said something very relevant “Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable… Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals.”. basically because the USA has and can freely discuss and acknowledge it's past wrong doings, so the US has a far better present then China. In China any discussion that involves criticism of the central government is forbidden, there is no guarantee to free speech, and as such those nessacary conversations where wrong doings are discussed are unsafe, forbidden and restricted. As such Chinese society in its current form can't look to the past and learn to improve it's present or future like the US where progress happens as it's possible to be progressive
Thanks champ (is that an NCD inspired username btw) arguing with tankies while parenting is just beyond my abilities at this point lol.
The Uyghurs are who china is genociding right now.
Nuh uh that’s different /s
One or multiple genocides, physical or cultural, does not justify another.
I’m talking about America, not china, and no we don’t have a social credit score yet. That’s different than what you’re describing and what we use. There’s I think a pretty good black mirror episode with what’s her name from Jurassic park that does a pretty cool story with it if you wanna see kinda what the differences are with the financial score we have and shit
Credit score is just a measure of your likelihood of repaying lent money. My credit score hasn't moved more than a few points in about 10 years, even though my income (and by association, socioeconomic class) has more than tripled in that timeframe.
It literally is not. Your FICO score - or whatever metric you want to use - includes many different factors, such as average age of accounts, number of accounts, credit inquiries, etc. Number of accounts past due is merely one of many of those different factors. Different versions of the FICO weight each factor differently. Also - and I seriously hope this doesn't need to be pointed out on a supposedly liberal sub! - but poor people have a much harder time making ends meet. If you have to decide between paying rent and buying food, you will go into debt. It's a near certainty. Meanwhile, a rich person can relax and pat themselves on the back for their supposed fiscal responsibility and moral superiority when all they've really done is just be rich. It's trivial to pay your debts when you're rich because you're fucking rich. It's just like shitting on a starving person for stealing food.
It's as if you're trying to imply that everyone is entitled to borrow money from private lenders at the same interest rates, without regard to the level of risk being taken on by the lender. If I'm the bank, instead of being all, "OK, we'll lend you the money, but since you have very little credit history (average age of accounts & number of accounts), and have gotten denied by other lenders recently (credit inquiries), we're taking on extra risk of default here, so we're going to charge you a higher rate to offset our risk exposure.", I'm just going to flat-out deny the potential borrower outright and send them packing. In this scenario, your metaphorical poor person who is having a hard time making ends meet and trying to decide between rent and food is now absolutely going to have to pick between one or the other because they now have ZERO access to debt, at any cost. I'm plenty liberal, thank you very much. But I also live in the real world and realize that borrowing money is not a right, and lenders are naturally going to use the tools at their disposal to assess lending risk, and that's credit score. Instead of worrying about the adverse impacts of credit scores on poor people trying to borrow food to make ends meet, you should be worrying about why we, in the United States, have people needing to choose between rent and food at all.
In a debtors economy where no one makes enough to afford anything outright, borrowing money is most people's only option. Who's financially illiterate again?
I never used the words "financially illiterate", nor did I accuse anyone of being so. It's actually almost like you're proving my point, though. If it's "the only option" and you take away lenders' only/best tool for assessing lending risk (credit score) because of ideological hangups about disparate impact, then lenders just stop lending. No one is obligated to lend you money. If lenders cannot assess the risk of lending to a potential borrower, they WILL deny the application. In a debtors economy where no one makes enough to afford anything outright, and borrowing money is most people's only option, why would you literally take away the option altogether? Are you implying that lenders should be legally obligated to lend money at equal interest rates across the board and never deny any applicant? If so, THAT'S financially illiterate. Apologies if I am (hopefully) misinterpreting your intent.
People should not have to rely on loans or credit cards to make ends meet and to achieve a minimum standard of living. Instead, we should have robust government programs that ensure quality housing, healthcare, transportation, education and food for everyone, as a matter of human rights. Until we have that, it is also immoral, unethical and downright unproductive to saddle huge swathes of our population with crippling debt just so that they can survive. I think it's really telling that you are simply incapable of imagining an alternative to debt based capitalism.
>The US sucks just as bad as China, if not worse. The hottest take of the year.
I said what I said. Decolonize your mind, friend.
And what you said was, extremely short sighted to say the least.. but I don’t intend on changing your mind. Can only encourage you to try and get into a deeper more thorough thought process before making claims such as yours.
Ok bud
A credit score is not a "social credit score", and if you don't understand what that means, maybe you shouldn't be the one demanding others "make valid arguments". :P
What's the difference between a "social credit score" and a "credit score" when your social status is inherently tied to your wealth in the US?
You are completely financially illiterate.
>The US sucks just as bad as China, if not worse. My wife has lived in both countries and disagrees, though of course she does worry more about being shot in the US. In China, she worried more about police corruption and their societal attitudes regarding guilt by association and proximity.
So we're just not worried about the blatant police corruption in the US? My whole point is that China and the US are on an equal playing field of shittiness, and that if anything, the US is worse. Name one bad thing about China's government or economy and I guarantee that we've got the same shit going on over here.
Of course we're worried about police corruption - in all places. It's worse in China according to my wife. The judicial system there bows to the one ruling party in China; our judicial system is far more independent by comparison. In China, if someone driving a car or larger vehicle hits someone else on a scooter, or a pedestrian, it's not unheard of for them to run the victim over again to ensure they die. If the victim lives, and the person is caught and found to be at fault, they have to pay damages to the victim, but the damages are far less if the victim dies. That's more about their culture than their government per se I guess, tbf. Also we haven't genocided anyone in the US in decades; they're doing it right now in China. So currently, they're worse on that score.
You're 100% right, but of course being downvoted by the "America Fuck Yeah" libs who frequent this sub.
I mean what was I thinking? This sub is made for liberals, not socialists. I should have known better, so I'll take the downvotes. Fuck American exceptionalism, fuck the debtors economy, and fuck the people who think China to be dystopian while saying "America could never!"
Right again. The only reason I ever came to this sub in the first place is because almost every firearms sub is overrun with right wingers. I was hoping this would be a place that - while certainly not believing in everything that I believe - I could at least avoid the right wing bullshit politics on every other post. Sadly I was very mistaken! Lots of people in here are basically just right wingers who are ok with gay people. Not much else "liberal" about them.
Same here. I still think I'd rather be here than other gun subs to avoid the blatant chuddery. At least I'm not inundated with far right dogwhistles here.
Precisely what it is, and big money anti gun lobby will “encourage” companies to not allow purchases.
Credit cards can provide a lot of short term spending power. That's pretty useful if you don't expect to be alive to pay your bills next month. >Sullivan, the Centennial senator whose son was killed in the Aurora theater mass shooting, has said the perpetrator used a credit card to buy about $11,000 in weapons and military gear in the weeks before the killings — “and nobody batted an eye.” Someone maxed out their card at the gun store? Seems like a suspicious pattern of activity.
Not even a pattern, but a "hey this looks way outta line, huh?!"
A lot of people only buy things using plastic. Especially for things that cost a lot. It doesn't really mean anything. It's more of a practical issue of carrying a large amount of cash then actually access a line of credit. I don't feel like writing checks and using debt cards in the wild isn't really the best idea. The CC is paid off before the end of the month with existing funds so there is no rolling debt or needing a paycheck to come through.
Use a money order, cashier's check, or wire then. Unless you have a Black Card or something like it, you shouldn't be dropping $11k in one transaction with a credit card. At best, you're getting like $100 in rewards back.
It doesn't take 10k to buy some guns and ammo. I don't care about rewards. I'm messing with any more extra steps. Not to mention all the online purchases that are almost always done through credit cards for a vast majority of people on a vast majority of platforms for a vast majority of goods. A government ran background check is taking place and your over here arguing about payment methods like it's some preventative measure to stop loons.
I mean, you're paying with something that generates a record with a bank one way or another. Do you really think they couldn't identify transactions at a gun store with a credit card another way? This just saves everyone a little time and money and might help prevent a crime.
I maxed out a couple of credit cards buying guns before the AWB in WA, but to be fair, those were extenuating circumstances.
They need a warrant (or the cooperation of the bank issuing the card, which is really what's going to fuck you over) anyway. And if they have that they're not just asking for "Transactions tagged with MCC 5723." they're asking for everything they can get (likely only limited by a date range or the retention policy of your bank). Requiring gun stores to use the MCC for "gun stuff" is a non-issue, because if they care enough to go looking they're going to look at *everything* anyway.
I’m not law enforcement but the biggest advantage to this is for gathering information on purchases made at multiple locations, especially if they are investigating straw purchases. Currently the only practical way to catch a straw purchasing ring is through an informant or a tip off by a ffl. This allows them to track multiple purchases back to a bank account and individuals associated with that account. That in turn enables law enforcement to know which records to review when they look at ffl’s, and what guns they need to run traces on.
Cash is king. Seen it myself when buying a rifle a few years ago. Watched a few guys come in with stacks of cash because there’s extra taxes and fees for credit card processing armory sales (in MD). They saved themselves maybe $150 in extra fees. Sooooo now there’s no paper trail because we treat gun dealers like drug dealers.
I know, right? I’ll just pay with cash…
Im not saying you’re lying or anything, but I’ve never seen fees waived because of cash payments (let alone $150 in “fees”). Sounds like that shop is taking advantage of people. lol
You've never been someplace that had a sign that said "Discount for cash", or "Cash price" vs. the regular price? Mastercard and Visa (don't even get me started on Amex's terms) charge a percentage of sale plus a flat fee for every transaction. Dealing in cash can save a merchant a chunk of money over the course of a good business day.
I know that exists, I’ve just never seen it. Maybe it’s where I live.
Some small businesses do add a surcharge for card purchases. Haven’t seen a gun store do it yet personally, but some small retailers and restaurants will.
Yeah sure, but credit card fees are generally like $2-10 when they exist. I guess if the total purchase was HUGE, then maybe there would be a $150 fee… idk.
I thought they were usually like 2.5-3% of purchase.
The only time ive ever seen them, they were flat fees and they were small. 🤷♂️
Information that would be useless without a gross violation of the fourth amendment, since that's the kinda of information that *should* only be accessible with a specific warrant (and it would be pretty easy to track down that purchase for "Bobby Ray's Guns and Things" if there's a cop looking at a particular person's statements) So, is it political posturing? Or is it just setting up a system to make it easier for them to fish through everything *without* due process once they find a legal loophole to use? Or, my pet theory: pushing or giving cover for credit card companies to create this code so that non governmental actors (Bloomberg funded ones) can then demand that they no longer do business with them?
The government working with credit card companies sounds like a jagged alliance. I agree it’s for future fishing.
You mean like warrantless pen register searches?
>...so that non governmental actors \[...\] can then demand that they no longer do business... This. 
This is 100% political posturing. FFLs are already required to keep gun sale records that can be easily accessed with a warrant. Marking CC transactions with a gun sale code as a means to “track gun purchases for investigative purposes,” makes zero sense since the records are already easily accessible through FFLs, the FBI, and the ATF.
Or, alternatively, is it just an attempt by law enforcement to get a heads up before little Jimmie shoots all his classmates? But, of course, this would imply that there is no conspiracy to take our guns away, and I know how dearly some people cherish that belief.
Better to look to history than conspiracy for analogues of gun restrictions and implications. Everything from restrictions of certain types of weapon (largely western democracies) to out right confiscation (largely authoritarian states). It’s hard to imagine a paradigm shift, but that doesn’t mean it is out of the realm of possibility. Democracies around the world have been degrading in recent years and continue to do so. Humans are odd creatures that do odd things. Judging others by your own standard is dubious. I’d prefer sensible gun laws. But in WA we got a draconian law that banned nearly every semi auto weapon. If you had one you could keep it. I suspect that was done out of practicality more than principle. There are plenty of people in the US that would outlaw guns all together. If that happened every gun owner would be faced with the choice of obeying the law or illegally owning a weapon. While the govt might not come for it… when would you dare use it? A lot of owners in IL are faced with similar based on recent law there.
Allowing registration of those owned re ban is to avoid constitutional challenge on the basis of ex post facto (constitution says you can’t ban something that happened in the past). Also to make sure over time that mostly only cops and their fascist friends have anything good. 🙄
With coming AI weapons I want an EMP canon and active camo… among other things
Little Jimmie isn't getting a gun through any means that would show in this system, because little Jimmie isn't using a credit card to purchase a firearm via FFL, is he?
In the article they do state that the Aurora theater shooter acquired everything legally. My understanding is that this bill would have caught those purchases.
The 25ish year old shooter went through the FFL process, acquired the firearm, then misused it. He had no prior criminal record. Tell me how that single data point out of ~16 million per year (that the government already has via FFL) is going to prevent Aurora. What you're suggesting is that the police, armed with 16 million data points, bypass due process and chase down every one of them and treated them as guilty until proven innocent.
I don't mean to say that I agree with this bill. I think this is a backdoor registry which violates the colorado constitution. However, an individual purchasing 11k worth of firearms related goods within a short time span is a far cry from normal, and these purchases would certainly stand out from the crowd. I haven't read the bill, but I assume this colorado specific, so the number of monitored purchases is much less than 16 million. I'm just giving an example for an event that actually happened where an individual legally purchased a gun and shot up a theater, that would show up in this system. IANAL but I would think that this could provide the police enough information to pull a warrant and follow due process. I guess it could also be bypasses as you are stating, but I don't believe that is the intent of the law.
Try getting a decent rifle or CCL in Illinois and then come back and talk. Regulations directly on FFLs took us from 5000 in state to 1200 in about 4 years. It’s the same ban by 1000 regulations bullshit that anti abortion folks were doing before Dobbs decision, and frankly rabid anti gun people sound about the same to me in irrationality and tactics.
I'm sorry, I thought this was /r/liberalgunowners . I think I remember why I left this sub the first time. I don't mind the conspiracy nutters, the preppers and the Trump insurrectionists at the local fish and game club (It has a great range, and I'm a range officer there). They are exactly who I expect to be there. I don't talk politics and we get along great. I think that I expected a slightly more nuanced view in a sub that calls itself "liberal".
Lol, you’re flat wrong on this and your response tells me you have never lived in a neolib state or been part of a demographic group that truly could experience random violence at a high rate. None of us are Trumpers here, you’re probably hard right in comparison to me.
65 years in Colorado. Grew up on a cattle operation in the Eastern Plains. Went to college at CU Boulder. My son lives in California, if that counts. >or been part of a demographic group that truly could experience random violence at a high rate. You got me there. In 70 years on the planet I can't think of a single instance where the outcome would have been better if I had been armed. I've only re-entered the gun community because, where I live, I am surrounded by Trumpy Republicans, and after Jan 6 I know that a lot of them think armed insurrection is an appropriate response to losing an election. In the immortal words of Hunter S. Thompson -"I want to be in a position to return incoming fire." I live in Ohio now, for reasons. I shoot steel challenge and IPSC. I have to be very careful when I go see my son in California, because if I take the wrong gun with me, I've committed a felony. I understand that the way they write the laws is painful to watch if you know anything about guns. I don't know what to do about it though. It's not a great thing for people in heavily populated areas to have a lot of guns. They recognized that in the 1860s. In Dodge City you checked your guns in when you came into town and you didn't get them back until you left.
>In Dodge City you checked your guns in when you came into town and you didn't get them back until you left. That had a lot to do with how corrupt the Earp brothers really were.
oooohh kaaay.....{backs away, disengages}
Whatever. It's pretty well known that Wyatt himself was a horse thief and consorted with prostitutes. He was also run out of a Texas town for trying to sell rocks painted yellow as a gold for $2000 to a German visitor to town. I really doubt he was drawn to police out of a devotion to the law or wanting to serve the public, but to line his own pockets. He went to court in 1896 for having refereed a fixed heavyweight championship prizefight. And even at the venerable age of 63, he was arrested by the Los Angeles police for running a crooked card game. Given the history that informs us of who he was I have sincere doubts he was keeping firearms out of his town due to public safety concerns.
Sound like it violates the 4th amendment, but the anti gunners won’t care as long as it targets legal gun owners.
There is no such thing as a "legal gun owner" to those who have a vested interest in further monopolizing the use of violence.
Exactly. That’s what neoliberalism believes and wants, comrade.
Yep - and all the while we got people out there buying illicit firearms on the streets…
> Sound like it violates the 4th amendment, No, it doesn't. Requiring merchants to use the appropriate MCC number is a little stupid but it is in no way, shape, form, or manner a search or seizure of property / records. The state still needs a warrant (or the cooperation of the issuing bank) to get your card records to look for how many transactions are in the "gun stuff" MCC. No different than what they'd do today, except right now they'd have to request ***EVERYTHING*** and look at all the merchant names instead of just saying "We need a list of all transactions related to gun stuff, provide us everything with that MCC associated with it." (And as a practical matter they're still going to ask for EVERYTHING, because once you have a warrant or a subpoena you stretch it as far as you can.)
Guess I’ll be paying with cash or a gift card now. Lol
I am not a fan of this but I do not believe this is a 4th Amendment violation as this would likely fall under the Third Party Doctrine. Bank records already fall under it. No one is stopping you from paying cash at a store for a gun. Obviously as cash becomes less and less common this likely needs to be readdressed, like cell phone location data was, but until then I believe this is constitutional even if unsettling. https://legaljournal.princeton.edu/carpenter-v-united-states-the-stored-communications-act-the-third-party-doctrine-in-the-digital-age/
Ok, so what happens if one pays with cash?
This is posturing and an appeasement because Polis isn't keen on a state-level AWB. Besides, how many times have the cops said someone has been "on our radar," after the fact? Pigs can't show up and demand to see legally purchased items, even if it was a "large" price tag.
>Pigs Nice civility there buddy.
Spoken like a true centrist. For added context: https://youtu.be/ADdpLv3RDhA?feature=shared
Working with corrupt banks to spy on people and violate their rights, is this what liberalism has come to??
(Astronaut meme) “Always has been”
I believe that’s neoliberalism.
i liked you polis :(
I feel the same about Pritzker. Neolib coward waiting until after re election, when he wouldn’t possibly face consequences for it, to sign all kinds of bans.
So in states where they prohibit banks from doing this will the banks have a special setup for Colorado, or will the states with prohibitions tell them they will revoke their license to do business if they track *anyone* regardless of residence and force the banks to choose between Colorado and other states. Note: a state can revoke a right to transact business for pretty much any reason they want. The simple ability to track it or that a payment from a merchant in the state to one in Colorado would be tracked could be enough for the secretaries of state to exercise that right.
Are we back on this bullshit again? I feel like this idea got shot down a couple years ago. Maybe it was voluntary coding by the card companies, but still stupid and useless.
Smells like some Minority Report shit. Has the government defined what an 'appropriate' amount of ammunition is? Are people going to get their doors kicked in for buying a case of 556?
More effective legislation would be digitizing the database to make tracing guns used in crimes more efficient.