Skip to content

Bank of America freezes the account of a firearms manufacturer

January 7, 2013

 According to the owner of American Spirit Arms, Joe Sirochman, Bank of America has frozen his company’s account because they do not like the business he is in.

    Here is what Mr. Sirochman posted on Facebook:

My name is Joe Sirochman owner of American Spirit Arms…our Web site orders have jumped 500 percent causing our Web site e-commerce processing larger deposits to Bank of America. So they decided to hold the deposits for further review

  In a way I can understand that position; suddenly Mr. Sirochman is making deposits which are much, much larger than normal so there is a chance there could be something fishy going on that the bank would like to take a look at. Kind of making sure everything is on the level, but that is not what is going on here.

  Joe Sirochman was told this by a bank representative:

I finally got a manager in the right department that told me the reason that the deposits were on hold for further review — her exact words were — ‘We believe you should not be selling guns and parts on the Internet.’”(emphasis added)

  Bank of America seemingly doesn’t believe that Joe Sirochman should be selling weapons and parts over the internet even though it is a legitimate and legal business venture. 

  Mr. Sirochman is now looking for another bank and I would suggest that anyone who is a gun owner or second amendment advocate who does business with Bank of America do the same.

22 Comments leave one →
  1. January 7, 2013 7:52 pm

    When I finally am employed again, my direct deposit will be going to USAA. Enough of this bullshit. Is he a veteran? USAA.


    • January 7, 2013 8:05 pm

      We have to speak with our pocketbooks, it is all they understand! Good luck finding a new job, I am sure it is tough out there under Obama’s economy.


      • January 7, 2013 8:14 pm

        Negative fecal matter.


  2. January 7, 2013 7:54 pm

    Reblogged this on Cmblake6's Weblog and commented:
    Joe, let me suggest USAA. When I finally get a new job, that’s where my direct deposit will be going.


    • January 7, 2013 8:06 pm

      Thank you, we must make BOA pay for this decision! I know I am not alone in this line of thinking, I hope there are enough of us out there to make a difference.


      • January 7, 2013 8:14 pm

        I’ll be one of them.


      • January 8, 2013 6:55 am

        It kind of makes me wish I had an account there so I could close it today!


  3. January 7, 2013 8:10 pm

    Gee! What happened to being tolerant? You are exactly right, Steve. Every red blooded American that has an account with Bank of America should close it tomorrow!


    • January 7, 2013 8:14 pm

      I wish I had money in BOA so I could withdraw it and make a statement tomorrow.


  4. January 7, 2013 8:14 pm

    The Bank of America should just change it’s frickin’ name to the Bank of Obama—since its spewing the party line. My first gun—a 22 rifle was purchased via the Sears and Roebuck catalog some years before the JFK assassignation, after which such sales were banned because that’s how Lee Harvey Oswald got this rifle. I understand that the Biden people are thinking about vastly expanding the old assault rifle ban in this new push and that one provision will be that weapons cannot be passed on from father to son after the father’s death. The gun-grabbers are very serious in their efforts to gut the 2nd.


    • January 7, 2013 8:24 pm

      I have heard the same thing as well, they want to basically ban the private sale of all firearms and this is going to be the biggest 2nd amendment fight we have had in a long time. They feel they have the momentum now and they have no intention of backing down, we must be prepared for the fight!


      • January 7, 2013 8:34 pm

        Failing to get a ban on private sells, I would expect them to go after ammo and also excessives taxes on guns and ammo. And then of course, there is that executive order thingy looming in the shadows.


      • January 7, 2013 8:38 pm

        What executive order thingy?


      • January 7, 2013 8:44 pm

        There seems to be strong support for reinstating the ban on assault weapons, and for closing the gun show loophole. I hadn’t heard about forbidding testamentary giving, but it makes some sense – if dad wrote his will in 1980 and went into the nursing home in 1990 and has Alzheimers, and Sonny, to whom he left his firearms collection, got hit in the head and doesn’t know what day it is, that bequest should be invalidated.

        Generally speaking, though, I think the only people talking about the large-scale disarming of the American people are the NRA and the gun manufacturers who control it, and conservatives responding to the NRA’s hysteria and hyperbole.

        Take good care and may God bless us all!



      • January 7, 2013 9:56 pm

        Ron, Harvard is now calling for huge taxes on guns and ammo and I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Democrats adopt this idea at all, it has been talked about in the past.


      • January 7, 2013 10:00 pm

        TGY, it’s not just the NRA. Did you see Feinstein’s draft legislation? According to the points she released she would ban all handguns with a magazine of 10 or more rounds. This is basically all handguns with the exception of sub compact handguns. Those of us who do have these handguns would be grandfathered, however we would have to register with the federal government and be fingerprinted as if we were sex offenders or something, all for practicing legally a right guaranteed in the constitution.


  5. January 7, 2013 8:37 pm

    A few days ago, there was a tempest in a teapot over a Denny’s manager who asked an armed detective to leave because another patron had seen the firearm and told the manager s/he was uncomfortable. Lots of Facebook drama ensued, and the Denny’s corporation inssisted that it is not their policy to require law enforcement officers to disarm themselves before having a big stack or whatever. The problem was not a Denny’s problem, the problem was a Denny’s manager needed training problem.

    I think that’s the issue here. I would be terribly surprised if this woman keeps her current position dealing with the public as a face of BOA. I think she stepped way out of line with her comments, and I think those comments reflected her own opinion, not that of her employer, although she arrogantly employed the royal “we” in her pronouncement.

    When our folding money says “legal tender” it has a real legal meaning. I think BOA has no right to deny a company the full range of its services simply because it doesn’t happen to like the business they’re in. I mean, come on, guys – we all know that BoA has engaged in some pretty dreary business tactics and practices over the years, plus we (and that’d include the gun company) bailed them out of a big hole not long ago. For them to suddenly get all moral like this would be the height of arrogance. Plus I really think it’s illegal.

    Which is why I think it’s not really a BoA problem, but a BoA mamager training problem.

    Take good care, and may God bless us all!



    • January 7, 2013 10:02 pm

      You could be right TGY, this could be just one person’s opinion but that is not what she said. If she isn’t representative of BOA I expect action to be taken against her.


  6. January 8, 2013 3:02 pm

    Let me say this, first and foremost; ANY GUN BUSINESS that is still doing their banking at a BoA is a FOOL!

    Many blog posts were written by reputable gun bloggers concerning the McMillan Group International debacle and how BoA treated them, if American Spirit Arms, and its owner, Joe Sirochman, weren’t paying attention, they should have been.

    I wrote a post about McMillan Group International and how BoA reportedly treated them: Bank of America to gun company: Find another bank, and in it I asked ALL of my readers that were gun owners and CHL holders to pull their accounts from BoA and hit them where it hurts; the money pile.

    Maybe there just weren’t enough gun people with accounts at BoA, I know I have never had so much as one red cent in a BoA, so other than write a blog post and make a suggestion, there wasn’t a heck of a lot else I could do.

    I can’t tell you what to do, I can’t make anyone do anything, but I am hoping this story doesn’t fall on deaf ears. I hope that you will read it, make a decision based on the story itself, and then, if you’re a BoA customer, I hope you will re-evaluate your bank and its stand against guns, gun companies and gun owners.

    If BoA has an attitude like that being related, they don’t need to have ANY money that belongs to Americans gunners in their coffers. If they can’t, and/or won’t support the Second Amendment, they don’t deserve MY business and I don’t think they deserve your business either!


    • January 8, 2013 7:40 pm

      I couldn’t agree more Fred, anyone who is a gun owner needs to pull their money out of BOA, but they also have to tell them why they are doing it so they will get the point.


  7. LD Jackson permalink
    January 8, 2013 6:58 pm

    It would be interesting to know if this is just one employee’s opinion, or the “unofficial”, “official” stance of Bank of America. At any rate, there is simply no excuse for a statement such as this.


    • January 8, 2013 7:42 pm

      There is a possibility this was just one person’s view but she did way ‘we’ and I think it is probable that this edict came down from above. According to Fred above this isn’t the first time BOA has been unfriendly to gun owners, it appears a trend may be developing.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: