The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

As has been mentioned, NRA and BASC, CPA, etc.,etc must bank with someone, and their names are hardly disguising what they are?
You'd think they would be telling their banks all the extra business they could get, by making them a 'club/RFD friendly' bank on the back of those association business...?

My guess would be that the NRA and BASC etc are operating as charities.

Also their annual turnover is high compared to small independent RFDs - I would have thought The Sportsman Guncentre have a bank account....again the odious business of anything gunrelated is pushed aside as there will be a high turnover.

It will be all part of the overall plan to get rid of shooting as a sport. They can't do it all at once, so it is death by a thousand cuts. Just make it more and more difficult and people will give up and do something else. It seems some Police Forces are now going round and making demands for more costly security if you have more than about five firearms. All part of the plan.
Regards
Peter.

PeterN wrote:It will be all part of the overall plan to get rid of shooting as a sport. They can't do it all at once, so it is death by a thousand cuts. Just make it more and more difficult and people will give up and do something else. It seems some Police Forces are now going round and making demands for more costly security if you have more than about five firearms. All part of the plan.
Regards
Peter.

Lincolnshire being one of them. Hence we are getting guns in for storage until the owners figure something out. It is as far as I can tell a strategy to cull guns that are not used often - "logic" - why do you have 25 guns when you can only shoot one at a time. Owner then has to install alarm system and opts for getting rid of the lesser used guns.

I am spitting about this, the owner does not all of a sudden become a maniac at renewal just because he/she has 2 figure guns.

Agenda alright.

I think a lot of you are reading too much into this. I used to work for a high street bank and had a very good customer who wished to open a lap-dancing bar. The bank wanted nothing to do with it - the reason given was reputational risk, they quite simply did not want to be in the position where the public would know the bank had financed a lap dancing bar or indeed handled the proceeds. The same is probably true with accounts linked with shooting - they imagine if a member of a club went crazy and shot ten innocent people that it would come out somewhere in media coverage that the club banked with them and that may therefore affect other people's decisions to bank with them.

Maybe the NRA should be backing RFD's and clubs by telling them who they bank with and putting their weight behind them if they run into problems?... A bank would be far more likely to listen to the NRA threatening to leave considering their turnover.

Surely the trick is to just have a name, or preferably acronym for the club and just change it to suit IF asked? My club for example is NEPSG, North-East Practical ShotGun, but if asked by a nosey teller it would be North-East Practical Sporting Group

Obviously different for businesses as the bank has a 'right' to know what you're doing to earn the money/if you're after a loan so they can pry properly

Not sure why anyone is so wedded to the idea that their company name and/or bank account needs to be the marketing or trading name they use?

Lever357 wrote:I think a lot of you are reading too much into this. I used to work for a high street bank and had a very good customer who wished to open a lap-dancing bar. The bank wanted nothing to do with it - the reason given was reputational risk, they quite simply did not want to be in the position where the public would know the bank had financed a lap dancing bar or indeed handled the proceeds. The same is probably true with accounts linked with shooting - they imagine if a member of a club went crazy and shot ten innocent people that it would come out somewhere in media coverage that the club banked with them and that may therefore affect other people's decisions to bank with them.

This seems the most logical explanation.

BamBam wrote:

Lever357 wrote:I think a lot of you are reading too much into this. I used to work for a high street bank and had a very good customer who wished to open a lap-dancing bar. The bank wanted nothing to do with it - the reason given was reputational risk, they quite simply did not want to be in the position where the public would know the bank had financed a lap dancing bar or indeed handled the proceeds. The same is probably true with accounts linked with shooting - they imagine if a member of a club went crazy and shot ten innocent people that it would come out somewhere in media coverage that the club banked with them and that may therefore affect other people's decisions to bank with them.

This seems the most logical explanation.

may be true but doesnt help