Online Payment Firm Stripe Boots 3D Gun Designer Cody Wilson's Companies

SonicSpike writes with this news from Reason magazine: Cody Wilson, famous for making the first usable fully plastic 3D printed handgun and for his new project "Ghost Gunner" which mills metal lower receivers (the milling machine itself is of course not a weapon, and what it makes is not itself legally a weapon) for AR-15s, [informed me Monday] that his online payment processor Stripe has decided that his companies, all of them, qualify as forbidden "weapons and munitions; gunpowder and other explosives" services. This includes the Ghost Gunner and Defense Distributed.

Comments

I thought the lower receiver is the weapon..

[Anonymous Coward]

since you can buy all the other parts and they're not weapons.

Re:I thought the lower receiver is the weapon..

[carlhaagen]

Depending on country, various parts are classed as "vital". In Sweden for example, barrels and slides ("upper receiver") demand licenses, but a lower receiver doesn't.

Re:I thought the lower receiver is the weapon..

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure of the specifics of this case, but legally you can sell an 80% completed lower that isn't classified as a weapon in the US because "significant" work still needs to be done to make it a usable lower receiver

Re:I thought the lower receiver is the weapon..

[NotDrWho]

The more relevant weapons in this situation are the IRS audit and the FBI raid, two BFG's that Stripe definitely wants to avoid.

Re:I thought the lower receiver is the weapon..

[Anonymous Coward]

Anything can be a weapon if placed in the right hands in the right situation. The barrel of a gun could be used like a lead pipe, for example. It's a pretty sturdy chunk of metal, after all!

This is where the anti-gun folks have it all wrong. Banning guns will only lead to an increase in knife crimes (ask England). And this is ignoring the fact that there are so many guns in the US that if they were banned it would make little difference. Do you want criminals and corrupt cops to be the only ones with guns?

If people want to find a way to hurt/kill others, they will, regardless of the legality/availablity of guns.

Re:I thought the lower receiver is the weapon..

[Noah Haders]

Also the "operation chokepoint "government pressure on bank transactions for businesses that they consider undesirable. that may be the heart of what's going on here.

Re:I thought the lower receiver is the weapon..

[rogoshen1]

START Devil's advocate
Did you hear about that guy who stabbed like 15 of his classmates to death? Or the dude in Norway who went to an island retreat with his trusty knife, and murdered over 100 people with it?
END Devil's Advocate

granted crimes like that represent the absolute rarest form of homicide, but they generate the eyeballs for media.. and as usual, alarmism will win the day.

Re:I thought the lower receiver is the weapon..

[jythie]

I am skeptical that the government cares enough to be exerting pressure. This is more likely the effect of media hype.

Re: I thought the lower receiver is the weapon..

[corychristison]

The difference between a gun and a knife is /very/ significant. For example, with a semi automatic gun, you can take out a lot more people, a lot more quickly. With a knife, that is not so easily accomplished.

I was born, raised, and live in Canada. Our gun laws are incredibly strict. Our gun violence is virtually non-existant (yes, some slip through the cracks, that is expected).

I will admit I am completely biased on this subject, but considering there is more gun violence in most individual US States than there is in my country, I'd say we're doing something right.

I'm not afraid to go for a walk or jog at night. I'm not paraoid about locking my doors at night. I'm not afraid to go to a mall, or public place. I'm not afraid to send my children to school.

All too many Americans are living in fear, and it's mostly due to gun violence.

Re:I thought the lower receiver is the weapon..

[Anonymous Coward]

You have obviously not been reading about what they are trying to do with operation chokepoint.

Re:I thought the lower receiver is the weapon..

[TwoEyedJack]

In other words, fascism.

Re:I thought the lower receiver is the weapon..

[jythie]

That is a general problem yes, but the question is if they care enough to actually exert pressure to stop processors from working with this specific company. Cody Wilson's main product is hype and attention, he and his supporters have a seriously inflated sense of importance and persecution. They ramp up the rhetoric to make his stuff sound more influential then it actually is, when all he has really done is repeat what people have been doing for decades, but doing it worse.

If the government does end up cracking down on his cluster of companies it will be his own stupid fault for producing the hype and someone with regulatory authority actually buying into it.

Re:I thought the lower receiver is the weapon..

[tehcyder]

Anything can be a weapon if placed in the right hands in the right situation.

I'd still rather have murderous psycopaths with lumps of rock than nuclear weapons.

Re:I thought the lower receiver is the weapon..

[TangoMargarine]

I think we need a corollary to Godwin's Law just for people who mention nuclear weapons in gun ownership debates.

Re:I thought the lower receiver is the weapon..

[ganjadude]

just like school shootings, they dont happen often but when they do they take over the media, meanwhile 3 people were shot in my city (9th deadliest in the country) last night

Re: I thought the lower receiver is the weapon..

[ganjadude]

crime is crime asshole

Re:I thought the lower receiver is the weapon..

[ganjadude]

Manhattans law?

Re:I thought the lower receiver is the weapon..

[Anonymous Coward]

since you can buy all the other parts and they're not weapons.

An 80% lower is not a weapon, do ANY machining to it towards making it functional and that changes. So what goes in the Ghost Gunner is not a weapon, what comes
out is.

Source: I am a Weapons manufacturer (type 10 license)

Re: I thought the lower receiver is the weapon..

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that backed up by statistics?

My recollection is that mass shootings (with a single gunman) tend to have casualties in the low teens to twenties, which is about what the recent stabbing rampage managed.

Re:I thought the lower receiver is the weapon..

[jythie]

While I can acknowledge that goal, I still put that more in the 'hype' box. For the foreseeable future at least the solutions he is working on generally require greater skill and resources then the more traditional methods for producing home firearms. It is kinda like the people working on laser pistols and DIY coil guns, yeah they work and do not count as 'weapons' under federal law, and yeah you can build them at home, but outside the naughty little high of building such devices, they really do not actually add much to the day to day reality of things. Maybe some day some new materials or tools will come out that actually does result in no-skill DIY firearms, but until then they are just philosophical points and that is about it.

Re:I thought the lower receiver is the weapon..

[MozeeToby]

Do they care enough? Well that depends. Does it take a court order (with a required quarterly refresh), 200 man hours to set up, and 20 per month to maintain? Or does it take 2 phone calls and an entry in a database? If the former, yeah printable firearms almost certainly isn't high enough on anyone's radar. If the later, I absolutely believe they would come down hard on "minor annoyance" situations such as this. I suspect the real answer is somewhere in the middle.

Re: I thought the lower receiver is the weapon..

[Anonymous Coward]

A running man can slice 8000 throats in a single night.

      - Klingon proverb

Re:I thought the lower receiver is the weapon..

[LiENUS]

This is where the anti-gun folks have it all wrong. Banning guns will only lead to an increase in knife crimes (ask England)

Last I checked banning guns increased gun crime in england, not knife crime.

Re:I thought the lower receiver is the weapon..

[almitydave]

I suggest Turgidson's Law.

Re:I thought the lower receiver is the weapon..

[TheCarp]

Meh, it takes all kinds though doesn't it? Sure he is more provocateur than innovator but, do we really just need one and not the other? Rosa parks was an activist who provoked response purposefully with a mostly symbolic act; but knowing that she wasn't just another tired and opinionated black woman doesn't diminish my respect for her. If anything it increases my respect for her, being willing to actually be the lighting rod.

This CNC mill is not so much special technologically, whats special about it was how it was designed and marketed. Would they have become available anyway? Likely. Would they be as cheap anyway? Likely. However, the point of the whole project isn't really technical, its social.

People in general, and regulators, are used to a world where the means of production is in the hands of the few and banning things was a power that government had. I say had because, what I don't think people realize is the very core of what Defense Distributed's fight is really about..... the era of being able to ban things is coming to an end.

I think there is value in preparing people for that.

Re:I thought the lower receiver is the weapon..

[TheCarp]

even if it takes 2000 man hours, never underestimate the power of overtime pay. Its not like anyone is ever going to say "you spent 2000 hours on that? What the fuck is wrong with you". As long as the hours get used up for something they can put in a category, they are happy as pigs in shit.

When actual cost is completely external, nearly anything can be justified with the flimsiest of excuse.

Re:I thought the lower receiver is the weapon..

[Anonymous Coward]

The definition of "significant" will change as 3D printing becomes more commonplace.

Re: I thought the lower receiver is the weapon..

[TheCarp]

"I'm not afraid to go for a walk or jog at night....All too many Americans are living in fear, and it's mostly due to gun violence."

Living in fear? Really? Could have fooled me. Perception is not reality. Violent crime rates in the US have been falling for a generation now, and yet, every year people are polled they claim to believe the trend is exactly the opposite....every year.

Sure around some cities there are bad neighborhoods, mostly ones ravaged by the drug war which has created a number of violent drug gangs. The much of this gun violence as you call it is actually gang violence and usually gang member on gang member, with occasional others.

Quite simply, guns did not create our gang problem, that was done by a mix of poverty, the drug war, and general boneheaded inability to admit a policy is bad and rather unchecked fetish for conflict escalation amongst policy makers.

Do you have private prisons and owners of private prisons who basically can write the law? Do you have people doing ungodly amounts of time for simple non-violent drug crime? Do you offer addicts little to no viable treatment paths unless they are at least middle class or better?

Do you combine all that with swat raids at the drop of a hat? How many "million dollar blocks" do you have in your cities?

Re: I thought the lower receiver is the weapon..

[TheCarp]

I think your argument is flawed in that you say we "would rather have a non-zero number of kids and adults die each year from gun violence than give up hand guns and other firearms." since the option of having zero people of any age die of gun violence is not and never was actually an option that even could be honestly on the table.

Its really just not correct to put it in those terms at all.

Re:I thought the lower receiver is the weapon..

[jythie]

Oh I agree there is a place for both, but I think it is important to not confuse one for the other. My original premise was that they guy and his company is kinda a nothing. A star within a narrow, mostly online community, but I question if he is even on the radar of government officials.

As for the era of being able to ban things coming to an end? Not really. I think a lot of people in that community tend to confuse the ease of breaking a law being equivalent to the law being unenforceable. You see this a lot in BTC rhetoric, the idea that because it makes payments hard to track it makes taxes go away and money laundering fine, but in general bans and enforcement are not rooted in tracking every single source. They are enforced via getting caught, usually due to some other investigation.

For instance, if this tech gets good enough, sure you can build more and more stuff at home, but if you build things that are illegal and something goes wrong or you commit another crime, you will probably get in trouble for that too. One current example would be conversion of semi-automatic weapons to fully automatic. You are not supposed to do it, you can physically do it at home, but if you get caught with a converted rifle you still get arrested even though they had no dragnet checking every home to see what people were building.

Another fun example is that kid who built a breeder reactor in his shed. The raw materials were all (ok, with some exceptions) legally sourced and he did all the work himself. Anyone can do it, but we are not living in a time where bans on home fission reactors simply went 'poof' or are impossible to enforce.

I think there is a certain techie appeal to the dragnet imagry, it is a very technological problem with very technological solutions. Humans on the ground investigating crimes on the other hand, is much softer and the solutions to that are not nearly as sexy.

Re:I thought the lower receiver is the weapon..

[Kevin Fishburne]

Anything can be a weapon if placed in the right hands in the right situation.

I'd still rather have murderous psycopaths with lumps of rock than nuclear weapons.

I'd rather have murderous psychopaths with belt-fed machine guns that fired nuclear warheads. Fuck yeah.

Re:I thought the lower receiver is the weapon..

[Anonymous Coward]

You might want to look up the 2010 Nanking massacre. Edged weapons are very effective in minimally practiced hands, but the kind of people who commit such acts usually ignore developing any such skills at all.

Similarly, people forget (or never knew) that those Columbine Massacre kids also set up bombs in the school, but they sucked at bomb-making, so their bombs fizzled. If they were good at it, the news media would have had the masses all worked up about that, and pandering politicians would have us submitting ID every time we have to refill the tank for the gas grill. Humans are panicky animals, and alarmism sells eyeballs to advertisers on 24/7 news channels.

Furthermore, later school massacres would have been more likely to copycat the Columbine bomb-making, assuming it had yielded a high enough body count. Instead, people think guns are more effective at slaughtering innocents, including those few who would engage in such horrific acts. They're wrong; proper IEDs are potentially far worse, and extremely difficult to prevent.

Counter-intuitively, we've also been very lucky that most mass shooters have made poor choices in weapons and tactics. I would say the VA Tech shooter probably had the most effective (and chilling) plan, though not the most victims.

- T

PS.: "It's been 1 hour, 8 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment". Jesus tap-dancing Christ, that's ridiculous, even for limiting AC posts.

Re: I thought the lower receiver is the weapon..

[mbkennel]

| Quite simply, guns did not create our gang problem

Guns of course increase the substantial collateral damage from the gang problem.

Re:I thought the lower receiver is the weapon..

[Anonymous Coward]

So sell 75% ones and only provide plans for going to 80%. The rest is left as an exercise for the reader.

Re:I thought the lower receiver is the weapon..

[Anonymous Coward]

So sell 75% ones and only provide plans for going to 80%. The rest is left as an exercise for the reader.

Your humour is fallacious. An 80% receiver is any product beyond an ingot/ raw material which could become a receiver, but has been declared by BATFE to not be a weapon. The term 80% is a marketing term, not a percentage of completion.

Re:I thought the lower receiver is the weapon..

[Anguirel]

I often find introducing the high-end of armaments appropriate. Is a nuclear weapon an armament? Does the government have laws that infringe upon the right of citizens to keep and bear it? Do you believe those regulations are Constitutional? If you answer "Yes" to all of those, then there's already a line, and you're just bickering over where the line goes -- we've already given up the protections of the Second Amendment. If you answer "No" to either of the first two, I'm usually confused. If you answer "No" to just the last one, you're at least consistent in your position.

Re:I thought the lower receiver is the weapon..

[TangoMargarine]

If by "consistent in your position" you mean "given to reductio ad absurdum" then sure.

I don't think anybody will agree that it's self-defense to use a nuke to defend one person, because the collateral damage unless you're in the middle of Bumfuck Nowhere is hideously, exponentially higher than anything you're hoping to accomplish. In the same way, I could take the other side of that argument and argue that you're saying that if anybody tells you to give them your wallet, you take them down to your bank, withdraw your life savings to give to them, and then go door-to-door to help them rustle up further income. Because we can't possibly fight them!

Or if you get criticized at work, then obviously the only course of action is to quit on the spot because it's inevitable you'd get fired anyway.

Or if somebody honks at you in traffic, you should obviously go down to the DMV and hand in your driver's license again. Because obviously you don't know how to drive and are just a danger to everyone else.

P.S: A nuke maybe be an armament but it is certainly not an arm in the vernacular of the Founding Fathers' day. I kind of doubt they considered a fully crewed man o' war an "arm" either.

Re: I thought the lower receiver is the weapon..

[AK Marc]

To a lot of Americans, it's significant that the government has to check itself and it's actions for fear of causing a shooting war with it's own citizens. That alone is worth whatever number of kids and other people die in gun violence.

Yes, your wet dream of an armed revolt is worth thousands of dead every year from guns.

Re: I thought the lower receiver is the weapon..

[AK Marc]

Living in fear? Really? Could have fooled me. Perception is not reality. Violent crime rates in the US have been falling for a generation now, and yet, every year people are polled they claim to believe the trend is exactly the opposite....every year.

Read your statement again.

People perceive crime to be getting worse all the time (despite it going down), seems to support the idea that people fear it.

Quite simply, guns did not create our gang problem, that was done by a mix of poverty, the drug war, and general boneheaded inability to admit a policy is bad and rather unchecked fetish for conflict escalation amongst policy makers.

If there were no guns, what would the gangs look like?

Re:I thought the lower receiver is the weapon..

[AK Marc]

Is a nuclear weapon an armament?
If you answer "No" to either of the first two, I'm usually confused.

No. In the context of "arms" as defined in the constitution, the word "bear" hold meaning to me. "Keep or bear" would mean "own or carry" to me. So I take the arms in question to be ones that can be carried. If you can't carry it, then why would you be explicitly given the right to carry something you are incapable of carrying?

So I'd consider "arms" in this context to be man-portable ones only.

Congress may not prevent you from carrying a battle ship. Of course they won't prevent it. Physics prevents it.

I'm not a lawyer, and this isn't a legal definition, but it makes sense from the context that the arms are relating personal arms. I know many cannons were privately owned around the time the Constitution was written.

But then, I also think it was more establishing the National Guard than about private ownership of firearms. We should have followed every other war after WWII and disbanded the military. We'd have 30% lower taxes (not having to pay interest on the debt) and a balanced budget, plus a more productive nation. Let the states constitute the military through National Guard, with everyone being members, owning their military weapons, and being held responsible for their care and use. Lower cost, more weapons, and a violation of what both the conservatives and liberals say the 2nd means.

Re: I thought the lower receiver is the weapon..

[TheCarp]

> People perceive crime to be getting worse all the time (despite it going down), seems to support the idea
> that people fear it.

Yes but living in fear? Not going outside? Sorry, I just don't see that. I can't think of the last time I had a person express that much fear about it. Yes, in polls people think its increasing....that doesn't mean they actually dwell on it that much.

> If there were no guns, what would the gangs look like?

They would still have guns, because it is ridiculous to even pose the question of what things would be like without guns, they are far too trivial to make. Almost nobody actually does manufacture their own or do illegal small scale manufacture, but, the best you could do is incentivise more of that to happen.

Sure you may be able to then arrest more people, and pat yourself on the back for that....but arresting the criminals you created with bad policy is at best a jobs program.

Re: I thought the lower receiver is the weapon..

[Anonymous Coward]

What metric do you use to measure the percentage of dead?

Re: I thought the lower receiver is the weapon..

[Anonymous Coward]

Some Americans are living in fear of guns, yes. Those people are paranoid and in almost every case I've encountered have never been around or been properly shown how to handle a gun. It's fear of the unknown by and large.

The U.S. has almost 300,000,000 guns in circulation. Gun homocides are about 14,000 / year. That's a 99.9999% responsible use rate. 99.99% is statistically perfect.

The fact of the matter is that there are 4 cities in the US, which, if removed from the figures will vault US into the top spot in the world for lack of gun homocides. New Orleans, Chicago, Detroit and Baltimore.

Re:I thought the lower receiver is the weapon..

[Anguirel]

It isn't reductio ad absurdum, as your examples are. It is accepting the definition of the word. "Nuclear Arms" are, by definition, "Arms", and the right to keep and bear them shall not be infringed. If you're ok with infringing on that right in this case, you're bickering over where to draw the line between "arms you're allowed to keep and bear" and "arms you're not allowed to keep and bear."

The second amendment is not about self-defense against individuals, it is about self-defense against larger groups, either foreign armies (at the time, there was no national army, and even if there was it was weeks or even months before news of an attack would reach them and months more before they'd be able to respond), or roving bands of bandits and such.

P.S. A fully crewed man'o'war would comprise several arms (each cannon is a single armament, and cannons were and still are definitely covered by the Second Amendment). The ship itself, and the individual weapons on it, would certainly have been something a private citizen could own if they chose to do so.

Re:I thought the lower receiver is the weapon..

[Anguirel]

I can't bear a cannon, but I can have it pulled by a horse. You noted yourself that they were accepted and protected by the Second Amendment at the time the Constitution was written, and they would have been amongst the most destructive weapons known at the time. The context around it was that each township needed their own militia to protect against attacks as it could take weeks or even months for word of such an event to reach any central location. It was also in there because they felt they needed to be able to fight the government's army on equal terms should it ever be necessary again.

Re:I thought the lower receiver is the weapon..

[TangoMargarine]

"Nuclear Arms" are, by definition, "Arms", and the right to keep and bear them shall not be infringed.

Which was my exact point. Nobody calls them nuclear arms. They're called nuclear armaments. Go look up the definition of "arms." In a nutshell, they at least have to be usable by a single person. If a single person can launch a nuke...we have problems. Can the President launch any nukes without at least the physical assistance of other operators?

The second amendment is not about self-defense against individuals, it is about self-defense against larger groups, either foreign armies (at the time, there was no national army, and even if there was it was weeks or even months before news of an attack would reach them and months more before they'd be able to respond), or roving bands of bandits and such.

A model I kind of wish we'd go back to, at this point.* Military-Industrial Complex--Eisenhower was right.

*Although I have no idea whether a halfway-plausible argument can be made for that. Would it be survivable? Discuss.

Re:I thought the lower receiver is the weapon..

[AK Marc]

The true spirit is held with the National Guard. Local armories, for quick arming of the population in the event of an invasion.

There should be more effort put forth for raising the level of the Guard, and lowering the funding for the standing military.

We could survive (and balance the budget without cutting any pork) by cutting the standing army. We'll keep the guard for the lunatics who claim that without a standing army with 600+ bases and a military presence in (roughly) half of the countries in the world would result in an immediate invasion of the US by China and ISIS.

Re:I thought the lower receiver is the weapon..

[Anguirel]

Which was my exact point. Nobody calls them nuclear arms. They're called nuclear armaments. Go look up the definition of "arms."

"1. weapons and ammunition; armaments."

They're the same word. There is no difference between "armaments" and "arms" when referring to weapons.

They were referred to as "Arms" by such entities as the United States and the Soviet Union when they signed the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. It's the common noun used when discussing things such as the Nuclear Arms race. Of the two, I'd say "Nuclear Armaments" is less used. "Nuclear Weapons" is probably more common than either of those.

Bitcoin...

[carlhaagen]

...and other cryptographic currencies. This is one out of many reasons why we need them.

Re:Bitcoin...

[ArcadeMan]

Yeah! Screw those paper bills that can't be traced back and gives you anonymity, let's do something illegal with Bitcoins and its wonderful blockchain instead!

Re:Bitcoin...

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you like to buy a new tinfoil hat? We now accept Bitcoin! :)

Re:Bitcoin...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait wait... the NSA told me that bitcoins were completely untraceable. You mean electronic transactions aren't anonymous?

Re:Bitcoin...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not about anonymity, you narrowminded fool. It's about a payment method and network that big banking cannot control. Also, if you do insist, you can "mix coins" on the BTC block chain to completely remove all traces of a final transaction.

Re:Bitcoin...

[carlhaagen]

Not sure I understand your response. He isn't dealing with cash, he is dealing with bank transfers, which are the complete opposite of anonymous. But the problem here isn't about doing anonymous transaction - this guy is after all not trying to be incognito; quite the opposite - the problem here is that banking and comporations have control over these traditional payment solutions. In contrast, they have absolutely no control at all over Bitcoin, Litecoin, Dogecoin etc.

Re:Bitcoin...

[chemicaldave]

You mean the paper bills with unique serial numbers printed on each one? The ones which are regularly used by law enforcement to track the movement of money in drug and counterfeiting investigations?

Re:Bitcoin...

[Anonymous Coward]

And bitcoin transactions solves what? Does McDonalds take Bitcoin? Walmart? How about your utility companies? Mortgage/rent? Car payment? The majority of things people spend money on don't take bitcoin. That then involves me converting all of my fakemoney to real money, which becomes traceable. And obviously if I convert it back to real money I'll need either some sort of debit/credit card or I'm stuck paying cash...which works great unless I want to buy online from say Amazon. I mean I guess I might be able to use Paypal, but let's not pretend that it'll be anonymous.

At the end of the day "crypto-currencies" are a sham until they're backed by a nation or a group of nations and it's a simple reason: people purchase stuff with actual currency backed by the might of their nation(s). At best it's a libertarian's wet dream to have money that can't be tracked (and therefore taxed) and at its worst it's a criminal's money laundering wet dream.

Re:Bitcoin...

[gox]

Cody Wilson is not anonymous in any shape or form. This is about censorship. Same happened for Wikileaks, and Bitcoin turned out to be quite useful for them.

Re:Bitcoin...

[Anonymous Coward]

Cryptography is used by bitcoins to prevent counterfeiting, not primarily to keep transactions private.

Re:Bitcoin...

[timeOday]

craiglist and ebay don't allow firearms listings either. You can argue that's bad, fine. But centering the discussion around Cody Wilson in particular, as if this were some arbitrary decision that just affects him, is just feeding into his self-promotion. On the contrary, it would be odd if Stripe's pre-existing policy against participating in the arms trade were somehow deemed to be inapplicable merely on the basis of how a gun is manufactured.

Re:Bitcoin...

[Jane Q. Public]

It's not about anonymity, you narrowminded fool. It's about a payment method and network that big banking cannot control.

Talk about narrow-minded. It's very much about BOTH. And more besides.

Re:Bitcoin...

[LordLucless]

I know, right. I've been making payments online by stuffing bank notes into my drive case for years. Funny, I never seem to get the goods I order.

Re:Bitcoin...

[AK Marc]

But it is anonymous. Every payment you receive, you can pay to yourself in a new wallet. So when you spend it, people can't trace it back directly to the previous trade. When you remove your anonymity to collect a physical item, yes, you lose anonymity, but it's not bitcoin that's removing anonymity.

Re:Bitcoin...

[gox]

Yeah, I'm not saying that Stripe has any say in it, or they are applying double standards. Just wanted to clarify that this is about control of information flow, and not anonymity, even though it is usually a parallel concern.

Re:Bitcoin...

[RockDoctor]

I thought that Wikileaks got round the Visa/ Paypal chokepoint by a variety of means, all of which pre-dated Bitcoin becoming anything like common. (Speaks the man who has never had a Bitcoin transaction in his life.)

Re:Bitcoin...

[gox]

Bitcoin was already around, but Wikileaks didn't use it until 6 months into the blockade. Haven't read it myself, but here's a foonote from Assange's new book:

On the day of the conversation [with Eric Schmidt], Bitcoin had risen above the US dollar and reached price parity with the Euro. By early 2014 it had risen to over $1,000, before falling to $430 as other Bitcoin-derived competing crypto-currencies started to take off. WikiLeaks’ strategic investments in the currency saw more than 8,000 percent return in three years, seeing us through the extralegal US banking blockade.

Here, they are saying that it makes up the majority of public funding (as of Jan 2014 though).

Re: Bitcoin...

[RockDoctor]

Interesting, thanks. May consider my first Bitcoin transaction.

No man is an island

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember that "you didn't build it" line by Obama? This is exactly that principle in action. He built every part of his business, but everything is interconnected and no matter how brilliant or hard working your are you still have to depend on things which other people built/control.

Re:No man is an island

[ganjadude]

they are entitled to not do business with him, just as im free to not do business with them. a shame too as i was recently recommending them to a few friends of mine, guess I will have to tell them not to use them now.

The only people who lose here are stripe

Re:No man is an island

[tepples]

With PayPal having a reputation of freezing merchants' accounts, what not-PayPal, not-Stripe payment processor should merchants be using instead?

Re:No man is an island

[TWX]

He's still free to take money-orders, or to take personal checks and wait for them to clear before mailing his products to his customers.

Ie, the way it worked back before we had electronic funds transfers.

Come to think of it, he can use actual bank electronic funds transfers independent of a payment processor, but it requires more coordination with banks to do so.

What it comes down to is that no one is required to do business with him, and no one that has done business with his is required to continue to do business with him. If Stripe doesn't feel that it's in their interest, whatever that interest may be or however accurate the assessment is, they're perfectly able to stop doing business within the bounds of agreements signed with him.

Re:No man is an island

[ArcadeMan]

Dogecoins, of course.

Re:No man is an island

[operagost]

The issue is that Stripe likely made its decision based on extralegal threats by the Holder justice department, or some other government agency. Operation Choke Point comes to mind. Failing actual legislative action, the executive imposes de facto suppression of firearms, pornography, bullion exchange, etc.

Re:No man is an island

[suutar]

Is Square a bad option? (I haven't heard anything particularly bad about them, but I don't pay a lot of attention to that field.)

Re:No man is an island

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, I'm just not buying anything that sounds like "dodgy-coin" or "doggy-coin".

I also doubt that the majority of the public, who may at least be aware of Bitcoin, will be likely to support these alternate coins, especially something that sounds like a deliberate scam or a poodle toy. Bitcoin at least sounds reasonable, has mind-share, and tentatively the support of businesses and the government (who indicate support by taxing stuff as opposed to putting you in jail).

Re:No man is an island

[Anonymous Coward]

Is Square a bad option? (I haven't heard anything particularly bad about them, but I don't pay a lot of attention to that field.)

Yes. Square has also participated in arbitrary cut-off of types of businesses they "don't like." Including those related to fire-arms.

They were a "pioneer" in this type of behavior. The guy that runs it is a left-wing progressive and acts on those ideas in how he runs the companies (he started Twitter too, ever notice why Twitter blocks people ragging on muslems but lets death threats for George Zimmerman (even by celebrities) go?)

If you are looking for "just get the job done" payment processor, Square isn't it.

Now we get to hear

[i kan reed]

How people theoretically using violence to overturn the results of democratic elections are would protect us from tyranny. Tyranny like controlling the classes of weapons available to people like them.

Honestly, I'm not sure there's any insight to be gained from having this conversation.

Re:Now we get to hear

[TWX]

Well, people don't like being told that the best way to control their government is to actually go out and meet local candidates for their school boards, city councils, county boards, and even homeowners associations and to actually listen to what those candidates have to say on issues other than abortion, firearms, religion, and sex. That takes too much work. Unfortunately for all of us, the people that start out in school boards, city councils, county boards, and even homeowners associations are the larval form of what become our representatives, senators, governors, and presidents and their cabinets.

I don't think that owning firearms would stop a government from being tyrannical or from attacking the population. I don't think that a lack of firearms in the population would mean that the population can't rise up. For the former, look at Iraq, which is loaded with weapons and had abuse by the government in Baghdad, and for the latter, look at the fall of the Berlin Wall, where the East German Communists didn't have the stomach for shooting tens of thousands of their own people when they interpreted an off-the-cuff comment about easing border controls as freedom to cross now.

Re:Now we get to hear

[jythie]

More importantly, the image of being able to 'rise against tyranny' with arms means you do not have to have popular support for your revolution. Weapons are a force multiplier, you need fewer people to accomplish your goal if they are armed. So instead of getting the support of a thousand residents, all you need is 20 armed ones. It allows new minorities to picture themselves in charge instead of that pesky majority that refuses to put the revolutionaries' priorities ahead of their own.

Re:Now we get to hear

[TWX]

Same thing can be observed with urban gangs too. A dozen people can terrify a neighborhood of thousands.

Re:Now we get to hear

[bigpat]

History is filled with examples and counter-examples, but to me the best historical example that gun restrictions can lead to a large scale rise in tyranny is that after World War I the German government was prohibited from having heavy weapons by treaty, so they in turn decided that they didn't want a civilian population as well armed as the government and began taking away people's right to own weapons. This in turn left the civilian population vulnerable to the type of thuggery that the Nazi party used in order to intimidate people at the local level. By the time the Nazi's rose to power it was too late and millions of people died, but it seems there was a crucial period where a well armed civilian population could have made a difference in preventing the rise of the Nazi party. Individuals didn't have the peace of mind that comes from knowing you can protect yourself from a gang of local thugs and criminals and the local thugs knew that a few guys with sticks and bricks can intimidate a community, especially in cities. At some point thuggery just reaches a critical political mass if it isn't nipped in the bud.

My concern isn't that the people have sufficient arms to over throw a government, might doesn't make right regardless of the motivation, my concern is that people are so disarmed that any group of thugs and organized criminals can intimidate an entire community and use that local power to seize control of government power themselves. Once thugs are in power and control the government then it is likely too late for a disorganized and oppressed population to do anything about it without outside help regardless of the right to own weapons.

We see this local effect of thuggery time and time again especially in cities, but also in some towns, where politicians come to power with the backing of organized crime. That kind of thuggery trickles up.

Re:Now we get to hear

[TWX]

The Nazis rose to the power with popular support. The people did not engage the leaders that they chose before choosing them.

This is part why so much concern is expressed in the United States when we see elements of fascism cropping up in political parties, when such groups start subhumanizing groups of people, where they start having information wings masquerading as news, and where issues are only allowed to be debated in black-and-white as opposed to the various greys that they really are, it's an appeal as authority because they say they are, not because they've earned it, and it can lead to terrible results.

Re:Now we get to hear

[CanHasDIY]

Same thing can be observed with urban gangs too. A dozen people can terrify a neighborhood of thousands.

Especially if those dozen people have military hardware and government authority.

Re:Now we get to hear

[Cyberax]

Right now it's legal for every homeowner in Iraq to own automatic weapons. Not just handguns, but freaking AK-74s. So how has that helped them against ISIS?

Re:Now we get to hear

[BasilBrush]

the German government was prohibited from having heavy weapons by treaty, so they in turn decided that they didn't want a civilian population as well armed as the government and began taking away people's right to own weapons. This in turn left the civilian population vulnerable to the type of thuggery that the Nazi party used in order to intimidate people at the local level.

Note that it was Hitler who deregulated gun ownership for all people except the Jews.

Note also that Hitler and the Nazis came to power democratically. So there wasn't a moral majority who would have resisted had they only had weapons.

Re:Now we get to hear

[bigpat]

Note also that Hitler and the Nazis came to power democratically. So there wasn't a moral majority who would have resisted had they only had weapons.

Democracy is more than just having an election. But like I said, the early rise of the Nazis was in part because of their thuggery. I agree that once they were in power it wasn't like a bunch of people with guns were going to stop them.

Re:Now we get to hear

[Anonymous Coward]

Especially when the government forbids moral and upright citizens from owning guns.

Re:Now we get to hear

[Cyberax]

Most of the households in Iraq have weapons (usually guns, though). Has that helped them against ISIS?

No problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Stripe is entitled to ban users from it's service just as I am entitled not to use Stripe's service. What's the problem?

Re:No problem

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that it's means it is.

I think the article should be updated....

[Puls4r]

Because I'm 100% sure that a couple of government 'visitor' types stopped by to help Stripe make this decision.

Re:I think the article should be updated....

[i kan reed]

I too am 100% positive things that I conjecture about with no evidence.

Re:I think the article should be updated....

[TWX]

And this is different from the IRS threatening audits for those that participate in multilevel marketing pyramid schemes how?

Re:I think the article should be updated....

[Anonymous Coward]

But there is precedent. State Dept pressures credit cards processors (?, not sure if I got that right) to block all kinds of stuff all the time, legal or not.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Re:I think the article should be updated....

[Jawnn]

I too am 100% positive things that I conjecture about with no evidence.

We agree that it is conjecture, and therefore we must agree that the phrase "100% positive" is semantically awkward, but there is definitely ample evidence to make the conjecture credible. Or to put more appropriately, I would not be at all surprise that the government has leaned on Stripe here, and only a fool would assume otherwise in the face of that government's recent behavior.

Re:I think the article should be updated....

[Charliemopps]

And this is different from the IRS threatening audits for those that participate in multilevel marketing pyramid schemes how?

Mr Wilson wasn't trying to defraud anyone.

Re:I think the article should be updated....

[TWX]

Some of those pyramid schemes actually do have products. Amway sells actual things (and their members get audited) and there are others that sell Bell+Howell and other manufacturers' goods.

Mind you, I wouldn't participate in those pyramid schemes as I value my time far too much to go through the hassle and hustle that someone attempting to make a living that way has to, but it's not simply selling the right to sell more rights.

Re:I think the article should be updated....

[i kan reed]

Yeah, but it's not just awkward, it's antithetical to being honest. Whatever trends you might mentally extrapolate into a mental model are never going to justify 100% certainty about this sort of thing.

I mean, let's at least acknowledge the obvious alternate case: an internal lawyer raising liability concerns.

Re:I think the article should be updated....

[TangoMargarine]

Keeping in mind the news these days, it seems obvious to me that we should apply Occam's Razor to the situation. Either:

A) the company doesn't want to do business with him anymore in case they get in trouble with the government, or
B) the government directly told them to stop.

Re:I think the article should be updated....

[CanHasDIY]

I mean, let's at least acknowledge the obvious alternate case: an internal lawyer raising liability concerns.

Perhaps, but the fact that he developed his reservations NOW rather than when they started doing business with Defense Distributed raises valid questions about his motives.

Re:I think the article should be updated....

[i kan reed]

No, that's stupid. Sorry. Not everything is inherently, and automatically obvious to everyone instantaneously. That's never true.

Besides that: "perhaps" was the central point. That's all it takes to undermine bullshitters delivering "100% certainty" when they know nothing.

Re:I think the article should be updated....

[Anonymous Coward]

Occam's Razor isn't much good when applied to false dichotomies.

Re:I think the article should be updated....

[Charliemopps]

The person getting ripped off my Amway and the like is not the person buying the products. Granted those products are overprice junk you could have gotten at walmart, but at least they get something out of it. The person getting ripped off is the salesperson. Amway nickle and dimes them into bankruptcy with classes, starter packs, yadda yadda.

Re:I think the article should be updated....

[TangoMargarine]

It's not a dichotomy. I'm saying they're 2 very similar reasons that fall under the same umbrella, and that either one or the other is likely to be accurate.

They make a lot more sense than

1) the company is making too much money and wants to be less profitable
2) the company thinks Cody Wilson is a poopyhead

So what are your proposed alternatives?

Re:I think the article should be updated....

[Anonymous Coward]

Keeping in mind the news these days, it seems obvious to me that we should apply Occam's Razor to the situation. Either:

A) the company doesn't want to do business with him anymore in case they get in trouble with the government, or
B) the government directly told them to stop.

OR

C) The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives pointed out in a letter to Stripe that selling unlicensed receivers (or equipment to produce them) was illegal and that being an accessory would drag them into any criminal liability

If you produce lower receivers without a license you are producing illegal firearms components and can go to jail.

Re:I think the article should be updated....

[TangoMargarine]

How is that not covered under my 2 points?

Re:I think the article should be updated....

[Anonymous Coward]

Keeping in mind the news these days, it seems obvious to me that we should apply Occam's Razor to the situation. Either:

A) the company doesn't want to do business with him anymore in case they get in trouble with the government, or B) the government directly told them to stop.

OR

C) The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives pointed out in a letter to Stripe that selling unlicensed receivers (or equipment to produce them) was illegal and that being an accessory would drag them into any criminal liability

If you produce lower receivers without a license you are producing illegal firearms components and can go to jail.

So... you accuse the ATF of lying (it is not in fact, illegal to sell equipment to make "unlicensed" receivers) to pressure Stripe?

And as long as someone is not _intending_to_sell_ receivers they make with the tool, it's perfectly legal. So you accuse the ATF of lying, and then lie yourself. You can make one, use it, decide you don't like it, and sell it later perfectly legally. Someone could buy this tool, make 8 receivers, build 4 rifles (for the family) make two pistols (for range toys) and keep four for future plans or grand kids... then sell the tool to the guy down the street who wants to do the same. All legally.

Furthermore, 4473 is not a "license" to do anything. In most non-left-wing-radical states, there IS no "licensed firearm" status.

You lefties should not post if you can't get basic facts right. Stop using TV as your source for information on this stuff. I know ya'll are upset about the mid-term election ass-raping you just got but come on... use your brain.

Not cool, Stripe

[shaven_llama]

Foisting your politics on your customers, eh? Stripe was one of my favorite services - to the point I never even thought about using any other payment processor. I see that may need to change...

Re:Not cool, Stripe

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds like a stern letter in the making. Are you the UN?

Re:Not cool, Stripe

[Anonymous Coward]

You "may" change? Way to take a meaningful stand!

Re:Not cool, Stripe

[Anonymous Coward]

watch out, we have a badass over here

Re:Not cool, Stripe

[TubeSteak]

Foisting your politics on your customers, eh?

What makes you think this is about politics and not just business?

Re:Not cool, Stripe

[Gryle]

I don't know that this is a political decision. As others have already commented, Stripe's legal team probably decided it wasn't worth the liability they could incur.

That being said, where exactly do you draw the line between personal ethics and business ethics? I've been thinking about that a lot in the wake of the Hobby Lobby decision by the Supreme Court. On the one hand, we want equal treatment for all. On the other hand, people shouldn't be required to sacrifice their personal principals just to go into business.

Re:Not cool, Stripe

[shaven_llama]

Well, I haven't evaluated the alternatives yet, man.

Re: Not cool, Stripe

[Anonymous Coward]

Just get back in your corner. Maybe you can go back to mail order catalogues or just give your credit card details to a stranger at the end of the phone.

Re:Not cool, Stripe

[Anonymous Coward]

Check with Insurance. I bet they put themselves at considerable risk, if they kept things as they were. And their insurance policy decided to update the cost, to reflect it. From a cost benefit scenario, the risk was not worth Stripe maintaining that business link.

There's lots to complain about here, if you're irrational. You chose the easiest target. And for it, were some how modded +5, Insightful.

Re:Not cool, Stripe

[Anonymous Coward]

Foisting your politics on your customers, eh? Stripe was one of my favorite services - to the point I never even thought about using any other payment processor. I see that may need to change...

They have a right to decide who to do business with, just like you have the same right.

Re:Not cool, Stripe

[Cyberax]

I thought that given the recent court decisions it's perfectly OK for companies to foist their political and religious believes on customers and employees. It's also totally OK from a libertarian point of view - after all, a company can do whatever it wants. You don't like it? Go to their competitor.

Re:Not cool, Stripe

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know that this is a political decision. As others have already commented, Stripe's legal team probably decided it wasn't worth the liability they could incur. That being said, where exactly do you draw the line between personal ethics and business ethics? I've been thinking about that a lot in the wake of the Hobby Lobby decision by the Supreme Court. On the one hand, we want equal treatment for all. On the other hand, people shouldn't be required to sacrifice their personal principals just to go into business.

Bullshit.

Why is Stripe then dealing in Bitcoins if they are so risk-adverse?

In March 2014, CEO Patrick Collison announced that Stripe would support Bitcoin transactions.[17] The announcement included that Stripe would automatically calculate costs incurred for customers in Bitcoin in comparison to their local currency, and that payments would be delivered to bank accounts within seven days.[18] The charges for these transactions were not yet announced.[17] Stripe also announced plans to process payments via Automated Clearing House, which would allow merchants to set up payments against a customer's bank account in the United States.[19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stripe_(company)#History

Re:Not cool, Stripe

[Anonymous Coward]

Likewise, two of the anti-gun founders of the anti-gun company Pay-Pal helped start, and basically own Stripe.

This is not risk-adverse, it's clearly political.

Lucky for Stripe

[Overzeetop]

Luckily for Stripe, they're not beholden to some government definition of what they, as a corporation, decide NOT to process transactions for. Upper receiver, lower receiver, high power magnets,Shirts with sexual innuendo, Hello Kitty paraphernalia. Their terms of service, their call.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[Archangel Michael]

BUT BUT BUT I thought Companies don't have the right to deny people's rights simply because they don't agree with them.

Substitute Gay Marriage for Guns in this case and see if your position changes.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no provision in the U.S. Constitution protecting the civil rights of gays. There is a whole amendment for protecting the civil right to own guns.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[Anonymous Coward]

Some animals are more equal than others.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[operagost]

In Federal law, homosexuals are not a protected class. State laws vary.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[jythie]

In the US this falls under 'public accommodation' laws which involve not being allowed to bar people from access to a service. Those laws would not apply here since we are looking at a product and not a person. Gun owners are not being denied access, only payment processing for some hazy definition of weapons. Companies are generally free to decide what they carry, but can get into trouble if they refuse to serve some people but not others.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[rossdee]

The protection is for being able to own (and carry) a weapon, it doesn't say anything about who has to sell one to you.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess "bare arms" is gay, huh?

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[Anonymous Coward]

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

This constrains the US Government. It does NOT constrain Stripe. Repeat after me. This constrains the US Government. It does NOT constrain Stripe.

As for your attempt to co-opt LGBT issues, a payment provider would not be able to discriminate on the basis of sexuality. It would have a very hard time proving it was not doing so should it refuse payment processing to a gay marriage provider. That has nothing to do with your rights under the 2nd amendment whatsoever. How a complete troll like that got modded to +4 is beyond me.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[kencoe]

Funny, I was just thinking the same thing about your post... Pot, meet kettle. Why not skip the rhetoric and contribute to the conversation?

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[Archangel Michael]

Can you point to any place in the Constitution where people have to sell you things because of a right you have? If you can, wouldn't it apply equally to wedding cakes for gay people and services sold to gun makers?

If not, could you please explain the difference between right to marry and right to keep and bear arms in rendering services to the public?

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[Archangel Michael]

So, you're supporting the idea that certain rights are for certain people are more important than other rights for everyone. Gotcha. So much for "equal protection" being equal.

Animal House was a cautionary tale, not an instruction book.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[fustakrakich]

It doesn't say anything about who is prohibited from selling one to you either, yet we have all sorts of laws covering that. If the government can prohibit, it can also mandate, as it frequently does, with little complaint. As long as online payment firms don't collude, they can do what they want. We need at least one that serves all our needs without objection, like a 'dumb pipe'.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[redmid17]

Animal House was an awesome, irreverent movie that has stood the test of time and become one of *the* classic comedies.

Animal Farm is a dystpoian, allegorical novella about government overreach and oppression, which is what I think you're going after here.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[Archangel Michael]

What were you thinking about my post? Where is pot/Kettle?

My Libertarian views are that people should be able to deny service as they see fit. Works equally for Cakes and guns. And for the same reason. It is entirely consistent.

My personal view on Marriage, is that it is none of the government's business, and there should be no laws either supporting or denying status based on marriage. Period.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[LordLimecat]

Depends whether you're dealing with a protected class. Gun receivers are not, last time I checked, a protected class.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[fgodfrey]

There is actually a huge difference in the argument you are making. There's a difference between choosing *who* you do business with (or employ) and *what kind* of business you are willing to be in. If you're a gun store and you refuse to sell someone a gun because they're gay, that should be illegal (whether it actually *is* illegal is still being debated). If you're, say, a department store and you don't wish to be in the business of selling guns, you should have a right not to be. I think this case is pretty clear cut that the payment processor has a right not to be in the business of processing payments for guns.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[fgodfrey]

(Now if Stripe is applying their rules differently for different people, that *is* a problem. If, for instance, they'd happily process payments for a gun store/manufacturer owned by a Democrat but not a Libertarian or a Republican, *that* I'd have a problem with even though I tend to be a Democrat).

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should a payment provider be allowed to discriminate based thing A versus thing B? Never mind the letter of the law.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[belthize]

Why the hell is this flagged as interesting. It's not even vaguely interesting from a logical argument sense. As others have pointed out there's a fundamental difference in *who* you choose to do business with based on race, color, religion etc and *what* you choose to do business with (e.g. gun part manufacturers, clown costume manufacturers, taco distributors).

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[CanHasDIY]

Although this does make me curious as to what other questionable products Stripe continues to process payments for, because the maker didn't piss off the wrong people in government.

I am of the opinion that I'm paying you for a service, not to spy on me and my clients on Uncle Sam's behalf.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[ganjadude]

the concept of protected classes smacks in the face against the concept of equality.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[Anonymous Coward]

He's not manufacturing or selling guns.

He's selling metal / plastic parts, period.

What the purchaser does with those parts is up to the purchaser.

If that's the case, then all metal fabrication plants and plastic parts manufacturers have to be excluded. As well as glass manufacturers, duct tape (used in kidnappings), etc...

They've opened themselves up to a massive lawsuit with their illegal antics.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[Ritz_Just_Ritz]

At the end of the day, the guy is selling a tool...a basic CNC milling machine. Those are available all over the place and serve many more purposes than allowing the owner to mill gun parts. I guess the next step is to prohibit people from selling files and drill bits because they can also be utilized for gunsmithing purposes. Where does it end?

I'm sure he can find another payment processor that doesn't have a political agenda.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[Anonymous Coward]

In the US companies do have the right to refuse service for any reason.

That was the point of the "sit ins" during the civil right movement. Black activists organized a DDOS on a business that refused to serve blacks by having wave after wave of activists enter the restaurant sit down in a seat and refuse to move (the police then removed them forcefully at the owner's request).

There are a few industries where it's illegal to discriminate, like housing. And some where there are government incentives to do business with "minorities", like banking. But for the vast majority the attitude is generally that the business is allowed to deny customers all they want they're pretty much only harming themselves be turning down money so the mostly don't cause trouble.

Without knowing a lot about other countries laws on the matter my guess is that Europe hasn't dealt with the same kind of institutionalized racism that plagued the US in recent history so their laws are probably more permissive, as it was crap like entire towns colluding and refusing to sell houses to non-whites that forced the "equal opportunity housing bill".

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[ljfrench]

There is no provision in the U.S. Constitution protecting the civil rights of gays. There is a whole amendment for protecting the civil right to own guns.

I disagree. The 5th and 14th amendments are intended to ensure all of us receive the equal protection of the laws. It is under these amendments that laws banning marriage were struck down.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[OverlordQ]

The 14th doesn't count?

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[ShanghaiBill]

Can you point to any place in the Constitution where people have to sell you things because of a right you have?

Yes. It is the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[jythie]

The thing about equal protection is, weak groups tend to need a bit more protection then strong ones. Strong groups generally can protect themselves and do not benefit nearly as much from the scraps of help others get.

It is also not a zero sum game. Believe it or not, a society of 300+ million people can both address 2nd amendment issues AND civil rights. The classic argument of 'we shouldn't do anything about XYZ issue I do not care about until ABC issue I do is completely settled!' is just another way of never getting around to XYZ.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[sexconker]

The best one is the anti age discrimination shit that only applies to age discrimination against people over a certain age.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[Attila Dimedici]

Can you point to any place in the Constitution where people have to sell you things because of a right you have?

Yes. It is the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Can you point to the wording of that amendment which applies to private citizens? Here is the full text of the 14th Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." I am sorry, I do not see anything about where people have to sell you things.However, I do see it as making the argument the person you responded to was making.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[John Jorsett]

Luckily for Stripe, they're not beholden to some government definition of what they, as a corporation, decide NOT to process transactions for. Upper receiver, lower receiver, high power magnets,Shirts with sexual innuendo, Hello Kitty paraphernalia. Their terms of service, their call.

Unfortunately for that theory, payment processing companies, banks, and other similar outfits are opening their mail and seeing inquiries from government agencies about their relationship with Certain Firms. Not that it's being implied that there's anything wrong with doing business with Certain Firms, oh heavens no, they're just, you know, asking questions. And so, most of those questioned outfits decide that doing business with Certain Firms is more trouble than it's worth and drop them.If you're government and wanting to cut off the oxygen to Certain Firms with minimal fuss and expense, what nicer, cleaner way than to just kind of casually glance in their financial institutions' direction and watch them scatter?

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[GrimShady]

One could argue that the right to bear arms is what allows you to be openly gay. Its almost ironical and shit. :)

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[xaotikdesigns]

I don't believe in the government deciding who can or can't get married. However, that doesn't mean that the government doesn't have certain interests in a household. For instance, when it comes matters in custody of children and inheritance. We have laws that dictate these kids of matters in relation to marriage.

I would much rather see the government drop marriage from teh language and develop domestic partnerships. Essentially contracts between people, regardless of whether or not they wish to engage in a religious ceremony or have sex with each other, that are stating that they are coming together for the purpose of maintaining a household. There should be different types of contracts, for instance, one could be just for people that wish to be room mates and would like to jointly file tax returns or share some of the benefits. Another could be for people that wish to combine assets, declare that one will inherit the goods of the other, and other such things that you now have with a marriage. Each could be easily dissolvable and should include set automatic expiration based on the level, but be as easy to renew as your car registration

This way the government no longer cares about who is in love with who, or what happens behind closed doors, and they can stick with what they should be regulating, while letting the religious leaders say who can and cannot get married within their own religion, and leave everybody else alone.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[Noah Haders]

The civil rights acts from the sixties extend equal protection to individuals. The regulation of businesses in this was ruled constitutional by Supreme Court due to commerce clause.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[sycodon]

Fuck, EVERYTHING is "Constitutional" due to the Commerce Clause.

Dumbest and most destructive interpretation ever made.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[Anonymous Coward]

That would make entirely too much sense and wouldn't allow the religious people to shove their views down everyone else's throats (we're only only TRUE meaning of marriage!). I wholeheartedly agree that all partnerships, with respect to the government, should be strictly a secular thing. If you wish to have a religious ceremony too, that's fine, but it should have absolutely no legal bearing on anything.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[Attila Dimedici]

So, the answer is that you cannot, but you are willing to take the Supreme Court's word for it that it is there?

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[orgelspieler]

There's a difference between firing somebody for being gay, and not wanting to process payments for somebody doing something you think is illegal. Now if Stripe fired one of their employees for owning a firearm, then you might have a point.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[Noah Haders]

The Supreme Court has the final say here. The only option is for a later Supreme Court to change the opinion.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[rahvin112]

Rightly or wrongly the Supreme Courts most recent ruling on the 2nd amendment essentially ignores the Militia part of the phrase.

What you interpret it to mean, or what previous precedents had ruled it to mean, has little bearing as the most recent ruling is the interpretation the courts will use.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[Anonymous Coward]

When the Republicans came for my grandfather, they had homemade weapons. This asshole is selling tools for their kind to use against anyone that isn't white. As you pointed out, that is the way of their kind. They hate us and want us dead, and these gun parts, just like the Internet, are one more tool they have to kill us. I don't know what is worse. The actual tools used to kill us or the Internet which is used as a communication tool to coordinate their racism.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[Attila Dimedici]

As I said, you cannot point to a place that the Constitution says that such is the way things should be, but because the Supreme Court says it does, you are willing to accept that it does.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[Anonymous Coward]

See 1st Amendment. Right to free speech. You know. The one that came BEFORE the 2nd?

Preference in this case, is an expression of free speech. And action, with regard to this, is an example of speech. If you think 'free speech' is limited to just what comes out of your mouth, printed on paper, and posted on the web, well, I've got some bad news for you.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[ArmoredDragon]

Or a constitutional amendment.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[rahvin112]

Marriage in the US is a government institution, not a religious one. It is a government managed contract between individuals that grants automatic extensive contractual relationships that are recognized and enforced by the government. There are people in this country that want to keep those government contracts but deny them to groups of people and pretend that there is no equal protection. Equal protection requires that everyone be treated the same.

What that means is that either we allow everyone to marry anyone they want and obtain those government contracts or we do away with government marriage entirely. The former will only impact (mostly positively) people that are now able to execute those government contracts, the latter will have broad reaching and sustained impacts on all American families, and most of those impacts will be severely negative.

Personally, I'd rather we just honor our constitution rather than dramatically unwind hundreds of years of legal precedent and automatic protections granted by government recognized marriage.

 

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess the next step is to prohibit people from selling files and drill bits because they can also be utilized for gunsmithing purposes.

Where is this prohibition you're talking about?

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[MouseR]

Only applies to Putin.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[pnutjam]

No, he pointed to the place it says as confirmed by the Supreme Court. Ignorance is no defense.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[pnutjam]

Give him a break, he's obviously slow (to embrace change, conservative).

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[Anonymous Coward]

you cannot point to a place that the Constitution says that such is the way things should be

Well, let's go through what you quoted:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

The beginning declares that we are talking about private citizens, defined as all person born or naturalized in the US. It also states everybody is affected by this clause.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;"

This part is saying the state can't make or enforce laws that abridge privileges or immunities of citizens. At first glance, telling a baker he has to sell wedding cakes to gays. But it actually isn't, because of the next part.

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

It says here the state can't force you unless there was due process. It doesn't mean the state can't force you to give up some of your life, liberty, property, etc. never ever.

And we know there has been a due process. Last story I heard about the bakery case was that the bakery owner is going to appeal, so the process may actually be still on going

This is where you might rephrase the question: why did government intervene on behalf of the gay couple? That's the last part of the quote.

"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The state cannot deny everybody equal protection under the law. Under the law, everybody's money is as good as anybody else. Your money can buy a cake. So can mine. So should the gay's. When a bakery owner arbitrarily decided the gay's money isn't as good as everybody else's, and the state does nothing about it, everybody's money is no longer equal under the law.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[cold fjord]

This is almost unbelievable, you can write in complete and coherent sentences. You didn't have a reply to that question did you? Would you be so kind as to actually express complete thoughts? I'd love to see it.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[Anonymous Coward]

BUT BUT BUT I thought Companies don't have the right to deny people's rights simply because they don't agree with them.

Substitute Gay Marriage for Guns in this case and see if your position changes.

"In this case"? Ok.

This guy is manufacturing gun parts without a license, right? So to compare that to gay marriage, it'd be like denying health benefits to a gay couple that aren't actually married, right? I do not see a problem with that.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[Noah Haders]

Dude, frownie face. Many of my posts are short and to-the-point cuz I write them on my phone when I'm on the crapper.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[ShanghaiBill]

Fuck, EVERYTHING is "Constitutional" due to the Commerce Clause.

NOT TRUE! In United States v. Morrison the Supreme Court specifically ruled that sexual assault is NOT a form of interstate commerce.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[SirSlud]

Where does it end is not an argument.

"We won't let 3 year olds drive cars? Where does it end?"

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[Anonymous Coward]

You might have overlooked the Fourth Amendment. And your conscious cherry-picking of the Federalist Papers arguments regarding the peoples' right to bear arms and form local militias seems disingenuous.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[GodInHell]

Yes there is. It's called the Equal Rights Clause, which is contained in the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. See Wikipedia.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you mean Democrats; it was the Republicans who set you free.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[Attila Dimedici]

Ah, so because the Supreme Court said that African Americans could not be citizens of the U.S., that should have settled the issue of slavery? No one should have further considered whether slavery was indeed protected by the Constitution? The Supreme Court had ruled, so, for you, the issue was settled.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[Anonymous Coward]

He is not manufacturing gun parts.
He sells equipment for working with metal and plastic. What buyers do with said equipment is their own business.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[cold fjord]

That makes perfect sense and explains the quality of your post. You just grab a handful and fling...

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[keltor]

That is quite literally the role of the Supreme Court. See Article III.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[Sloppy]

Luckily for Stripe, they're not beholden to some government definition of what they, as a corporation, decide NOT to process transactions for.

Or perhaps they got a call from someone with the government, explaining that they are beholden (says someone, as they metaphorically caress their sidearm) to certain informal definitions, which is what persuaded this seemingly-for-profit company to decide to live without whatever transaction fees they might have gained from doing this business.

We sure have been seeing a lot of .. voluntary cooperation .. from payment-processing companies when it comes to various "gray" markets. It's almost as though somebody wants to get more people interested in Bitcoin.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a whole amendment for protecting the civil right to own guns.

But that amendment affects what government can do, not what private corporations can do!

The sooner we get rid of (or shrink to the size of irrelevance) government in favor of a pure corporate governance the better. No more free speech or arms rights to impeded progress.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[Attila Dimedici]

I am sorry, but I do not see anything in Article III which says that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution says. And for that matter, if you look at the Supreme Court decision that is the basis for considering the Supreme Court as arbiter of constitutionality what it says is that the Justices of the Supreme Court are obligated to overturn unconstitutional laws by their oaths of office. A direct corollary of that would be that would be that Presidents are obligated to not sign unconstitutional laws and members of Congress (either House) are obligated to vote against unconstitutional laws. Yet, we frequently have laws come before the Supreme Court which are ruled unconstitutional.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[davydagger]

and general welfare, don't forget general welfare.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[Attila Dimedici]

So, everybody's money is as good as everyone else's, unless that person is attempting to use that money to assist someone else to exercise their Second Amendment rights. In which case it is perfectly OK to discriminate against them?

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[davydagger]

and this is my argument against constitutionalism.

I'm not saying the US Constitution is bad, but I'm just saying not only is it ineffective, its impossible for a document, any document to serve the role as an iron clad guaruntee of rights, or to protect the people.

In the history of the United States, since day one,(or at least since the Alien and Sedition acts), the government has blatantly ignored or re-interpreted the constitution to fit whatever they wanted to do anyway.

On the other side of the coin, the constitution gets used as a banner and an excuse against needed change.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it is the Republicans that have enslaved us and control nearly ever moment of our lives. They hate us and want us to die. That is why their thugs in blue murder thousands of us per year and their thugs in tan hold us in their prisons. If you are not white you are no longer free in this country.; Your life is complete shit and there is no hope. That is what the Republicans have done.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the 14th Amendment. The government has to apply laws and privileges equally to all citizens. There's a whole bunch of Supreme Court case law that goes into it as well: the 14th Amendment has a load of case baggage that you have to understand to get how it's applied in so many ways.

Re: Lucky for Stripe

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would we substitute Gun owners with gay are they not synonyms?

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[AK Marc]

I thought "people" was a protected class.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[AK Marc]

I am sorry, but I do not see anything in Article III which says that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution says.

"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court,"

There is One supreme Court for being the final arbiter of legal challenges regarding the United States. That you refuse to accept clear facts that challenge your opinions doesn't change the facts.

A direct corollary of that would be that would be that Presidents are obligated to not sign unconstitutional laws and members of Congress (either House) are obligated to vote against unconstitutional laws. Yet, we frequently have laws come before the Supreme Court which are ruled unconstitutional.

Yes, More than one president (from both parties) has signed laws, knowing they (or parts therein) were unconstitutional. They should be impeached for perjury, for violating their oath of office. That the government doesn't police itself well isn't proof the courts don't have jurisdiction. All three branches should challenge anything unconstitutional. That 2 of the 3 refuse to exercise that power doesn't mean the 3rd loses that power.

Your logic doesn't work.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[AK Marc]

So, you're supporting the idea that certain rights are for certain people are more important than other rights for everyone.

That's *always* true, under all conceived frameworks. Can you mow your lawn at 2 a.m.? You are putting someone's right to be a jackass against someone else's right to the pursuit of happiness (sleeping, at a reasonable time). Any framework someone comes up with will have the capacity for rights to conflict.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[AK Marc]

You must be between 18 and 55 (or is it 65?) to be protected. Elderly and children can be legally discriminated against.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[AK Marc]

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

This constrains the US Government. It does NOT constrain Stripe.

So you have no rights at all. They are protections from the government, but not actual rights. You don't have the right to bear arms. Everyone can take away those rights, so long as they aren't paid by the government to take away those rights.

That's the pure Libertarian ideal. Property has rights, but not people.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[MaskedSlacker]

No one should have further considered whether slavery was indeed protected by the Constitution? The Supreme Court had ruled, so, for you, the issue was settled.

It was settled until the 13,14, and 15 amendments were passed.

Because that's what amendments DO: they change the Constitution.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[Attila Dimedici]

Yet the Dredd Scott decision is generally considered to be an incorrect reading of the Constitution.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[Attila Dimedici]

What you fail to realize is that the Justices of the Supreme Court are no more infallible than the members of Congress or the men sitting in the office of President. That means that just because the Supreme Court says something is constitutional does not mean that it is any more than a President signing it into law guarantees that it is constitutional. Both are oath bound to reject unconstitutional laws, but that does not mean they always do so.
Furthermore, Marbury v Madison says that the Supreme Court can declare a law unconstitutional, NOT that it can declare a law constitutional. I know that many people have trouble understanding that this is an important distinction. The failure of the Supreme Court to declare a law unconstitutional does NOT mean that the law is constitutional. It merely means that those arguing the case before the Court failed to convince those on the Court that it was unconstitutional. There is something very scary about those who accept every ruling by the Supreme Court as infallible.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[AK Marc]

What you fail to realize is that the Justices of the Supreme Court are no more infallible than the members of Congress or the men sitting in the office of President.

What you don't realize is that I realize that, and you look like an ignorant fool for lecturing others.

That means that just because the Supreme Court says something is constitutional does not mean that it is any more than a President signing it into law guarantees that it is constitutional.

I'm saying that if the legislature, executive, and judicial agree it's Constitutional, then it is, de facto Constitutional. Your opinion won't change legal fact. It takes any one of the branches to block something, and it's unconstitutional. Even if only the Executive tries to block it and the veto is overridden, most things take some enforcement, and the Executive controls the enforcement organizations.

Furthermore, Marbury v Madison says that the Supreme Court can declare a law unconstitutional, NOT that it can declare a law constitutional.

Rhetorical games won't change reality. Something ruled "not unconstitutional" is the same as "constitutional". Much like people incorrectly say found "innocent" when someone is found "not guilty" Incorrect, but not inaccurate.

There is something very scary about those who accept every ruling by the Supreme Court as infallible.

Even worse are idiots who assert their ignorant opinion as "better" than that of everyone in the US government, and 90% of the people they argue the points about.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[Anonymous Coward]

So, everybody's money is as good as everyone else's, unless that person is attempting to use that money to assist someone else to exercise their Second Amendment rights. In which case it is perfectly OK to discriminate against them?

You're asking a nonsensical question. It's not discrimination when you're making decisions based on relevant ACTIONS of the other party.

If Stripe is consistent, our money would be just as (not) good as Mr Wilson if we did things (actions) similar things as he did. (if they're not consistent, Mr Wilson has grounds to sue and get government involved, and after due process was done we can decide if Stripe was discriminatory)

Contrast that to denying service because the buyer is gay. That's a status. You are denied service for who you are, not what you did/do/will do.

No, don't tell me the "action of wanting to hold a gay marriage" is grounds to deny service. As said, the actions have to be relevant. What people want to do with their cakes is to be blunt none of the baker's business. Last I checked, it was discovered that the bakery sold wedding cakes for DOGS, so it's not like they have a consistent record of caring about what people did with their cakes.

For the sake of argument, gay people may have been buying from that baker for years, and they may have a pastry fetish and are using the bakery's products in perverse (but still legal) sex plays. None of that is the baker's business.

This isn't true for payment processing. Unfortunately, money is required to do everything else. What people do with the help of Stripe can affect Stripe's business. Money is serious business. It's not a coincidence there is a lot more regulation (and debate over these regulations, including from libertarians) of banking and handling money than there are on baking wedding cakes.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[pnutjam]

Unfortunately, this discussion won't make it to the supreme court for clarification, so we can only look at existing decisions and say they are settled, because they are settled. That's what the court does, it verifies that the law is being implemented correctly based on what was written.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[Attila Dimedici]

Ah yes, because only what our high priests have said is true is true. I love your faith in the infallibility of the Supreme Court.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[Archangel Michael]

Just because the Supreme Court rules a particular way, doesn't mean it is right. Supreme Court changes it mind all the time.

I always laugh when Liberals use the Supreme Court as final authority when it is convenient (gay marriage) and call for all sorts of things when it is not (Campaign Contributions).

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[Archangel Michael]

its impossible for a document, any document to serve the role as an iron clad guaruntee of rights, or to protect the people.

That is the role of a well armed citizenry. Documents describe the goal, it is up to the people guaranty the goals.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[sexconker]

Wrong, as usual, AK Marc.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967

AGE LIMITS

SEC. 631. [Section 12]

(a) Individuals of at least 40 years of age

The prohibitions in this chapter shall be limited to individuals who are at least 40 years of age.

That's the big one, but plenty of other examples exist (though I doubt you'd bother to look them up or read them). They're almost all designed protect old people only.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[Archangel Michael]

Marriage is not a right. I cannot marry anyone that I choose. I cannot marry my daughter, is our civil rights being violated? Before you go down the road of "eww gross" or "Incest" or whatever, please consider this ... Equal protection means equal protection, and it applies to all or it doesn't. If you insist that gay people can marry, under equal protection, then you must also support all other forms of marriage you disagree with, including Polygamy and Incestuous.

The moment you proposed gay marriage, under equal protection, you opened up all forms of marriage you find "icky" or "distasteful" or whatever. The problem here is that the proponents of gay marriage have no idea what they have actually done, because they are myopic.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[Archangel Michael]

I will prove to you marriage is not a right. Can you marry your sibling? Equal protection clause doesn't work on gay marriage, plain and simple, because it already doesn't apply to all. Care to try again?

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[Archangel Michael]

Let me know when I can marry my daughter or sibling for "government benefits". Equal protection applies to all or it doesn't apply to anyone. This here is the problem with using equal protection clause.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[Archangel Michael]

Some people have more rights than others. Animal Farm .

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[Archangel Michael]

Selling smithing tools vs selling wedding cakes. Can i discriminate on selling something that is legal or not based on how I feel or not? It is hypocritical to support one class and not another, simply because you agree with that class and not the other.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[Archangel Michael]

This guy is not selling gun parts. He is selling machining equipment. A license is not needed. Selective re-organization of facts trying to support your case only shows that you care about "rights" you care about, and not "rights" for everyone. Good job.

Re: Lucky for Stripe

[Archangel Michael]

The same "rights" apply to both classes. If you only care about one class, you're just hypocrite.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[Archangel Michael]

You didn't answer the questions as asked. Equal protection applies to everyone or it is meaningless.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[beastofburdon]

Last I checked there were 10 amendments just in the bill of rights protecting their rights.

Remember, gay citizens are still citizens, and so are dark skinned citizens. Unfortunately the founding fathers began violating the constitution as soon as it was ratified.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[Anonymous Coward]

That's funny. Please point to the "wording" in the Constitution that guarantees the right to an abortion.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[davydagger]

That is something I can get behind.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[shutdown -p now]

He is selling it preprogrammed to produce lower receivers, and explicitly advertised as such. To any passer-by, it screams "gun nut". I can totally see why the payment processor might want to stay away, and I am a gun nut myself. Don't expect private entities to conform to your political views, they have their own.

Re: Lucky for Stripe

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not the slightest bit libertarian.

Re: Lucky for Stripe

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly

Re: Lucky for Stripe

[Anonymous Coward]

Who's he?

Or in today's military, could be, who's SHE?

Re: Lucky for Stripe

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh my, I've never been more turned on!

Re: Lucky for Stripe

[AK Marc]

Yes, no true scotsman pops out whenever libertarianism is insulted here. But no coward is forward enough to describe what it is to the point anyone can discuss it. Just what it isn't. It doesn't exist, for all I can tell.

Re:Lucky for Stripe

[pnutjam]

I think you have confused faith and fact, sorry.

Most unparsable headline ever!

[Anonymous Coward]

It took me a really long time to figure out what the verb is. Wtf are stripe boots?

Bitcoin.

[B5_geek]

This is one of the many problems that Bitcoin solves.

Re:Bitcoin.

[OzPeter]

This is one of the many problems that Bitcoin solves.

How does Bitcoin force a company to do business with another company if they don't want to?

Re:Bitcoin.

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't force anyone to do anything. But it does solve the payment issues that Cody Wilson's companies are facing, since nobody (government or otherwise) can block Bitcoin transactions.

Re:Bitcoin.

[Anonymous Coward]

The funny thing is that as companies that are not "politically correct" get access to conventional credit card processing services pulled, BitCoin is just going to get stronger. As of now, it is legit enough to be allowed onto app stores.

Forcing all firearms purchases to BitCoin might just be what gives that currency a critical mass to be "legit"... and once it becomes accepted even in banjo country, where the demand becomes like alcohol or drugs... there is no amount of legislation that would stop it. Picture Joe AR-15 with his stash of paper wallets, using those to trade for various goods.

Re:Bitcoin.

[B5_geek]

I'm not sure if you are intentionally be obtuse or not seeing the forest for the trees.

Bitcoin allows the seller to directly receive payment from the purchaser. Whenever a seller depends on a 3rd party intermediary to pass money through then that seller becomes dependant on the whims of that third party.

In some cases that 3rd party has enough clout to enforce change that is beneficial to society. But that power can be abused easily.

Lets take an imaginary scenario:
Payment processor "Money Buddy" discovers that website "slave-labour-goods.com" is forcing children to work 23hrs a day for a nickle. "Money Buddy" tells them to stop being assholes or they will stop processing their payments.

Nobody can really argue that this forced-change is a bad thing. Now lets change the scenario to something more ambigious.

"Money Buddy" discovers that "imported-cheap-stuff.com" forces that any female employees wear a hijab. The "Money Buddy" CEO is a feminist and thinks that this is an oppressive rule. But "imported-cheap-stuff.com" is located in a country that enforces that law, and the president of the company proudly wears her Hijab during the press conference proclaiming that "Money-Buddy" is actively trying to oppress her religion and national law.

Bitcoin bypasses that middleman. If you want to support child-labour and buy your sneakers for $2 less then the competitor offers then you can. If you want to make sure your money goes directly to the people you want you can. Why allow these fat-cats to continue getting their cut when they offer no added value for their services?

Bitcoin can be an incredibly powerful tool for change in society.

Contingent liability

[sjbe]

The only people who lose here are stripe

You think they lose? Let me introduce you to a little concept called contingent liability. They are making the perfectly sane decision that the potential liability and government scrutiny that could arise from facilitating these payments is not worth it. Honestly I might have made the same decision. Has nothing to do with approving or disapproving of the product being sold. It's simply an actuarial analysis that says the costs outweigh the benefits. They are in business to make money, not to facilitate business models that could cause them legal heartburn later.

Re:Contingent liability

[swillden]

The only people who lose here are stripe

You think they lose? Let me introduce you to a little concept called contingent liability. They are making the perfectly sane decision that the potential liability and government scrutiny that could arise from facilitating these payments is not worth it. Honestly I might have made the same decision. Has nothing to do with approving or disapproving of the product being sold. It's simply an actuarial analysis that says the costs outweigh the benefits. They are in business to make money, not to facilitate business models that could cause them legal heartburn later.

That argument would be a lot stronger if there were a pattern of payment service providers being held liable for damages due to criminal acts performed with firearms purchased with payment via their services. AFAICT, not only is there no such pattern, there isn't even a single example. There are a small number of examples of gun stores being sued (with little success except where the gun store broke the law), but no case where payment providers were even named in the suits, that I can find, anyway.

Given that, this decision seems more politically than fiscally motivated.

Re:Contingent liability

[TwoEyedJack]

Back in 2005, Congress passed a law shielding manufacturers from liability. One would assume the credit card processors would be shielded as well. People don't sue Ford Credit if a drunk driver they finance injures someone.

Re:Contingent liability

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a pattern, however, of government agencies shaking down law-abiding companies. Unfortunately most companies stay silent when the government goons show up to abuse their business. Those that speak up are heros.

    Gibson Guitar
    Mountain Pure Water Company
    IRS Presures Patriot Groups

There are more.

Re:Contingent liability

[ganjadude]

really? has visa ever been held accountable for someone who buys a gun with a visa card and kills people??? didnt think so

Re:Contingent liability

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a difference between fiscal and political motivation? In which country? Or planet?

Re:Contingent liability

[swillden]

There is a difference between fiscal and political motivation? In which country? Or planet?

To businesses they're completely different. To politicians, perhaps not so much.

Re:Contingent liability

[DarenN]

If you think that without government regulation we would not all be paying on MasterVISA cards with all other competitors being summarily crushed I have some bad news for you...

One company makes a decision about another...

[damn_registrars]

From the summary I see that company A has decided they don't want to do business with company B. I don't see them doing anything to prevent any other company from coming along and doing business with said company B. Isn't this how the market is supposed to work, companies are free to make their own decisions about who they want to do business with?

Re:One company makes a decision about another...

[Pope Hagbard]

But conservatives are the real victims in America today!!1one

Besides, it drives clicks and that's the important thing.

Re:One company makes a decision about another...

[damn_registrars]

Because it's kinda like Entity A (a company) doesn't want to do business (hire) Entity B (a black homosexual 65 year old man). Do you still not see a problem?

You're really not comparing apples to apples, here. However if you really want to play that particular - and disconnected - card, then you need to ask why your mythical company A did not hire person B. If there was someone else who was better qualified for the position, then there is no problem. There are even intangible qualifications that can be counted in the process, such as fitness for the physical requirements or availability of reliable transportation to the site.

In other words you cannot win by trying to play that card in a vacuum. The real world doesn't work that way.

Re:One company makes a decision about another...

[damn_registrars]

But conservatives are the real victims in America today!!1one

That's been the chorus on slashdot for years now. Even if they take the senate today we'll still hear the conservatives here bitching endlessly about being oppressed minorities.

Besides, it drives clicks and that's the important thing.

Pretty much. Any article that helps send slashdot readers to the likes of townhall.com and other conservative echo chambers are generally fast-tracked to the front page.

Re:One company makes a decision about another...

[CanHasDIY]

I wish people with this 'my side GOOD, yer side BAD' mentality would refrain from voting. Mainly because they're the dinks who keep electing the same D and R puppets, thinking that maybe this time things will be different!

Protip - if you're not voting for an independent candidate, you are part of the problem.

Re:One company makes a decision about another...

[damn_registrars]

Even for election day, you're a little over-amped. Might I suggest decaf for tomorrow morning?

Re:One company makes a decision about another...

[CanHasDIY]

I don't drink coffee.

Regardless, having to suffer moronic and\or downright evil leadership, because the ignorant masses stay ignorant by choice, should get every thinking individual 'amped up.'

If youprefer to be part of them problem, a la my previous post, just say so. No need to be a smarmy little bitch about it.

Re:One company makes a decision about another...

[damn_registrars]

Are you always this much fun or only when you think you know what you're talking about?

I now know who I won't ever use for online payment

[Anonymous Coward]

"Your rights should end where my feelings begin!"

No, they don't.

"Those who abjure violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf."

it was damned, regardless of reason.

[nimbius]

Stripes list of banned partners is indeed prolific, and likely so to make it trivial to simply refuse transaction services to anyone or anything that might shake investor confidence in the service. Cody's project could have been canned for any other number of reasons, including 'high rish businesses' as the ATF or federal government could shut him down at a moments notice. 'Regulated products and services' is the real reason he was terminated as a user because while its perfectly legitimate to manufacture offer a product which manufactures a lower receiver, that receiver does not include a serial number and cody himself has expressly admitted this illegality to be a point of sale, ownership, and operation he himself champions. Stripe has a similar policy against drug paraphenalia, and it stands to reason that while a 'tobacoo pipe' does not itself break the law, smoking illegal substances out of it certainly does.

Im not condoning stripe, i think theyre a fly-by-night processing company that stands for profit, not users. Theyre no better than paypal but that having been said, Cody is a very controversial american citizen. for a corporation to treat him as such comes as no suprise in this foul era of our lord the 21st century in which senators like Liebermann can simply phone amazon and have sites such as wikileaks shuttered. Corporations like Verizon control their news site content and prohibit icky topics like net neutrality and government spying because controversy is polarizing and limits a products audience. Companies like Stripe in turn are also trying to be good 'corporate citizens' and not make waves as processing services because the most lucrative business a company can hope to achieve is the government.

Re:it was damned, regardless of reason.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is perfectly legal to produce a firearm without a serial number. A serial number is only required fore firearms manufactured to be sold to someone else.

Re:it was damned, regardless of reason.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is nothing illegal about building your own firearm without a serial number. The serial number is only required if you transfer ownership - at which point you are also required to have an FFL.

It is also perfectly legal to sell products for the manufacture of firearms.

. . . shall not be infringed!

Re:it was damned, regardless of reason.

[Anonymous Coward]

that receiver does not include a serial number and cody himself has expressly admitted this illegality

It is neither illegal to make nor to own a receiver with no serial number (in the US; your mileage elsewhere will probably differ).

It is illegal to transfer ownership of same to somebody else, but that's not was being discussed.

Re:it was damned, regardless of reason.

[rahvin112]

He's not doing anything illegal. I'm sure he'd welcome the ATF coming after him because he would spank their ass in court.

It is not illegal to manufacture your own firearms for personal use. Anyone can do it.

Re:I now know who I won't ever use for online paym

[Overzeetop]

They're not rights when you're talking about negotiations between corporations. You are, of course, welcome to not use stripe for your payment services. I suspect Stripe is so worried about losing your non-existent business they're - at this very moment - trying to figure out how to win you back.

Just use Apple pay

[jfdavis668]

Everyone else is.

Re:Just use Apple pay

[NotSanguine]

Everyone else is.

You know, I find it quite interesting just how much press and attention ApplePay is getting. Even in /. comments it seems. I guess their marketing folks are spreading the money around pretty liberally. I wonder how much they'd pay me to shill for them?

Re:Just use Apple pay

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, I find it quite interesting just how much people claim anyone who appreciates something that they don't is suddenly a paid shill.
 
And if everyone is paying attention maybe they're not paying anyone... or maybe you just don't understand how social media has changed the face of mass media?

Re:Just use Apple pay

[NotSanguine]

You know, I find it quite interesting just how much people claim anyone who appreciates something that they don't is suddenly a paid shill. And if everyone is paying attention maybe they're not paying anyone... or maybe you just don't understand how social media has changed the face of mass media?

It may well be a matter of appreciation on jfdavis668's part. However, he claims "Everyone else is" using ApplePay. Which is absurd on its face.

As for the media (online and MSM) coverage, it's been orders of magnitude larger than for any other e-wallet/e-pay platform. So I made the inference that Apple is staging a big marketing push for it. That's a reasonable conclusion, IMHO. Whether jfdavis668 is a paid shill or not, is irrelevant.

Go troll someone else, AC.

Re:Just use Apple pay

[CanHasDIY]

... especially considering that I've yet to see an Apple Pay terminal in my tiny third-largest-city-in-the-state.

Google Wallet, yes, but no Apple Pay yet.

Re:Just use Apple pay

[jfdavis668]

A paid shill? I wish. My comment was more of a reference to everyone jumping on a bandwagon about whatever topic is hot right now. Fight one fire with another fire.

Re:Just use Apple pay

[NotSanguine]

A paid shill? I wish. My comment was more of a reference to everyone jumping on a bandwagon about whatever topic is hot right now. Fight one fire with another fire.

Understood. I guess we're in violent agreement, eh?

Cody's 2nd project = DarkWallet

[Adeptus_Luminati]

Look it up. He saw this coming over a year ago. DarkWallet = anonymity for Bitcoin.
The guy is not stupid by a long shot. Also listen to him speak, he's a great philosopher with the wisdom of an immature teenager.

Re:Cody's 2nd project = DarkWallet

[NoImNotNineVolt]

The guy is not stupid by a long shot. Also listen to him speak, he's a great philosopher with the wisdom of an immature teenager.

... but I thought you said the guy is not stupid?

Re:Cody's 2nd project = DarkWallet

[Anonymous Coward]

clever != wise

Re:Cody's 2nd project = DarkWallet

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Who's talking about cleverness?

Now I'm really confused.

Re:Cody's 2nd project = DarkWallet

[TangoMargarine]

You can be smart enough to figure out how to implement a cryptocurrency system, but not wise enough to understand the ethical arguments.

Cf. those phone phreakers who broke into stuff for kicks, but many of them had no hostile intent.

Re:Cody's 2nd project = DarkWallet

[CanHasDIY]

Pretty sure OP is saying that intelligence and maturity aren't prerequisites of each other.

Pretty sure I disagree with that.

Re:Cody's 2nd project = DarkWallet

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? I'm currently doing my masters. I'm going to school with a 16 year old who's doing his masters. This kid is extremely intelligent. Nobody with any sense would argue that. There's also an 11 year old working on a triple major. That kid isn't extremely intelligent, he's effing brilliant. The 16 year old is about as mature as any 16 year old you've ever met. His rebellious streak has started kicking in recently. The 11 year old, he's afraid to go to school without his mom coming with him. These aren't signs of maturity, though they're both clearly intelligent. And unfortunately, the argument you made, a single anecdotal case is enough to disprove it.

Re:Cody's 2nd project = DarkWallet

[NoImNotNineVolt]

"The guy is not stupid by a long shot", to me, was a statement about smarts. The guy is smart.
"He's a great philosopher", to me, was a statement about smarts. The guy is smart.
"With the wisdom of an immature teenager", to me, was a statement about smarts. The guy is not smart.

I suppose that last one was supposed to be a statement about maturity, not smarts? However, it's a statement about the guy's level of wisdom, not his level of maturity. He has the wisdom of an immature teenager, not the maturity of an immature teenager.

Disclaimer: English is not my first language.

Re:Cody's 2nd project = DarkWallet

[Anonymous Coward]

While all of the descriptions involved intellectual abilities, "wisdom" typically refers to smarts gained from experience (which an immature teenager would lack), while the "great philosopher" line likely referred to innate intelligence and reasoning ability. An intelligent person would become wise by gaining enough experience to understand (or at least predict) counterintuitive or irrational things like people's behavior.

He was saying that the guy is capable of reasoning well, but has no life experience and so applies his reasoning foolishly. (Note: foolish is an antonym of wise.) These distinctions are fluid, but most native speakers will associate wisdom with age (maturity) and experience.

Out of curiosity, what is your native language? I enjoy studying languages and would like to find similar examples from your language.

Re:Cody's 2nd project = DarkWallet

[TangoMargarine]

Man kann etwas wissen aber es nicht verstehen

Re:Cody's 2nd project = DarkWallet

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Polish. I suppose the closest analogues are mdro and pojtno.

Re:Cody's 2nd project = DarkWallet

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Ah, wow, forgot about the whole unicode thing. Madrosc and pojetnosc.

Re:Cody's 2nd project = DarkWallet

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Bier.

This is Business

[Anonymous Coward]

Have a client using your services who is generating a lot of controversy and is tip-toeing the line between legal and illegal? Sounds like everyone's favorite customer to have!

Seriously, when you are doing what they are, how can you NOT expect certain companies to not want to even look at you, especially when they have plenty of other business. Heck, I even swing pretty far into the "pro gun" camp, but I find nothing surprising or upsetting in this. Sounds like someone playing it safe. We can speculate that intimidating men in suits holding briefcases showed up and suddenly their service was cancelled, but I bet the answer is a lot more simple.

Title

[Anonymous Coward]

Did anyone else have to reread the title a couple of times?

Re:Title

[TangoMargarine]

If "Stripe" was in quotes or something, it would help.

"Firm Stripe" could be some sort of adverb. A method of booting someone?
(Online Payment) (Firm-Stripe Boots) (3D Gun Designer)

"Stripe Boots" could be the company since "Firm" seems to set us up for a name but we're missing a terminator. And "gun" could be a verb (like "gun down").
(Online Payment Firm "Stripe Boots") (3D Gun) (Designer). But then "gun" should be "guns."

(Online Payment Firm "Stripe") (Boots-Gun Designer)
Or maybe there's such a thing as a Boots Gun? A gun that fires boots? But then we're missing a verb...

Online Payment Firm "Stripe" Boots Gun Designer
Hmm...maybe "stripe" refers to the magnetic stripe? Or do people usually call that a magnetic strip?

Sigh

[pushing-robot]

Geeks (and other people, but us more than normal) love to analyze things, and think we're remarkably clever when we find a loophole in specific wording.

If laws were enforced by djinn that would be a useful skill, but laws are enforced by judges who are supposed to evaluate the spirit behind a law and the intent of your actions, not merely the letter. And they hate when people get 'clever'.

I assure you, the argument "But I'm not selling an X, I'm selling a magic box that spits out X when you press a button" will not go over well with a judge.

Re:Sigh

[dbc]

Except that the laws regarding home-built firearms are very well established and have been well fleshed-out. Believe me, a lot of the corner cases have been adjudicated. Wilson is selling a milling machine. People put hunks of metal in it. A CNC program runs on it. A home-built firearm comes out. That makes Wilson's machine no different from any other CNC milling machine. Look, illiterate craftsmen in Pakistan build AK-47's from scrap metal with hand tools. Are you going to require licenses for metal files now?

Re:Sigh

[swillden]

I assure you, the argument "But I'm not selling an X, I'm selling a magic box that spits out X when you press a button" will not go over well with a judge.

In this case, the judge won't even blink. We're talking about very well-established, well-proven law here. For many years people have been selling not just machines that manufacture X, but X itself, lacking only some finishing touches, plus instructions, access to equipment, etc... You can get someone to sell you an 80% lower receiver, set it up in the drilling jig, position the drill press, turn it on, put your hand on the lever and say "pull to finish your receiver".

There is no question whatsoever about the legality of this machine. It is perfectly legal.

Re:Sigh

[91degrees]

Look, illiterate craftsmen in Pakistan build AK-47's from scrap metal with hand tools. Are you going to require licenses for metal files now?

Perhaps, but only from the people who are selling them specifically for the purpose of manufacturing firearms.

As for how we determine this, we can look at what they're being used for, and what the makers are saying they can be used for.

Re:Sigh

[pushing-robot]

Except this isn't a metal file, or even a generic CNC milling machine. It's explicitly built and marketed as a single-purpose tool.

From a legal perspective it's one thing if I make BitTorrent but quite another if I make "MetallicaShare - click a button, get your favorite Metallica songs!".

I'm not saying the device is illegal or should be banned, but he will almost certainly have the same liability as if he were selling the AR-15 lower receivers himself.

Re:Sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

Except this isn't a metal file, or even a generic CNC milling machine. It's explicitly built and marketed as a single-purpose tool.

The single purpose which is perfectly legal - manufacturing a firearm for one's personal use and without a serial number is perfectly legal.

Re:Sigh

[CanHasDIY]

Sharing copyrighted material without permission is illegal; building your own guns is not.

Crap analogy.

Re:Sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

The analogy is not crap. Bittorrent is legal, however creating a network design with an illicit purpose in mind is not. Creating a tool is not illegal. Creating a tool designed for an illicit purpose is not legal. It's all about marketing and how you're presenting your product. Cody is retarded and he might as well just have called his machine the School Rampage Ultra-Killer Creator 2000. At least the sheer gall would make people think that it was just a marketing scheme or unfunny prank.

Re:Sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

True, a better analogy would be a music composing program with a "create 'random' music" function, that just happens to always spit out Metallica songs.

Re:Sigh

[rahvin112]

It is NOT illegal to manufacture firearms for personal use. He's not doing anything illegal by marketing to that purpose.

Re:Sigh

[DerekLyons]

Except that the laws regarding home-built firearms are very well established and have been well fleshed-out. Believe me, a lot of the corner cases have been adjudicated. Wilson is selling a milling machine. People put hunks of metal in it. A CNC program runs on it. A home-built firearm comes out. That makes Wilson's machine no different from any other CNC milling machine.

Certainly his machine is no different than any other machine - but his business is different from any other business selling those machines. His business isn't selling generic machines to generic people, it's selling them to specific people with a specific intended purpose. You're behaving like the typical geek described by the grandparent - thinking you've found a clever loophole. Stripe is behaving like the judge described by the grandparent - examining the spirit of the law and the Wilson's declared intent.

Re:Sigh

[dbc]

No, it actually is a generic milling machine. It is *marketed* as a CNC mill with a work envelope adequate to complete a cast aluminum AR-15 lower receiver, and the CNC program to do that comes with it. The law here is very well defined. You are right in that selling a "MetallicaShare" machine is questionable, because violating the Metallica copyrights is illegal. But homebuilt firearms are completely legal as long as all applicable laws are followed. Wilson is selling a legal machine that can do many legal things other than build firearms, and can also completely legally mill a completely legal AR-15 lower receiver.

You may not like it. You may not like the way I cook fish. That doesn't matter -- it is legal. The essence of freedom is letting other people do things you don't so much like, as long as they are doing no harm to you.

As to Wilson having the same liability as selling AR-15 lowers, pfffft. According to FBI statistics, more people are killed every year by blunt trauma (a hammer to the head) than by rifles of all types. Go look it up, it's on line. The hardware store isn't liable for selling hammers. Hammers aren't serialized. You don't need a license to carve your own hickory handle for a hammer head. The hardware store isn't liable for selling you a carving chisel if you kill someone with a hammer using a hand-carved handle that you made with a chisel you bought from them. Murder is already a crime. Knowledge of how to build firearms is not a crime.

Re:Sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

You have failed to recognize that the specific intended purpose of his business, to provide products for people to build their own unserialized firearm, is completely legal and well-established.

Now if Stripe feels that is a type of business it doesn't want to provide services to, it's no big deal. It's an opportunity for the rest of us to know that Stripe is opposed to certain inalienable rights.

Re:Sigh

[shutdown -p now]

It doesn't matter in the slightest, because the declared intent is not in aiding a commission of a crime. It's not illegal to use this machine to make a home-built lower.

This Is Pretty Much De Rigeur...

[NotSanguine]

Not just for Stripe, but for most (all?) of the CC payment processors. They generally do this sort of thing for a wide array of businesses and business models. The worst part is that often they will sign you up. accept your customers' money, then freeze your account, claiming your business is either too fraud prone and/or deals in illegal/inappropriate products/services.

Nothing to see here. Just business as usual. Move along, consumer.

Re:This Is Pretty Much De Rigeur...

[NotSanguine]

Just to clarify what I'm talking about:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/su...
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.co...
https://www.quora.com/Why-does...
https://news.ycombinator.com/i...
http://www.thefrisky.com/2014-...

It's just business - nothing personal

[sjbe]

Foisting your politics on your customers, eh? Stripe was one of my favorite services - to the point I never even thought about using any other payment processor. I see that may need to change...

Who said it has anything to do with politics? I support gun rights and I probably would have made the same decision. The potential liability and government oversight is simply not worth it. They are making a very sane and reasonable business decision. Just because it conflicts with your political beliefs doesn't mean it is a political decision. They might even share your political beliefs but still have come to the same reasoned business decision that the downside outweighs the upside.

Plus I should point out that you are trying to foist your politics off on Stripe. Why should they be forced to share your political beliefs? Why should they be forced to pick a side?

Re:It's just business - nothing personal

[Oligonicella]

They did pick a side, he just doesn't agree.

Re:It's just business - nothing personal

[ksheff]

The potential liability and government oversight is simply not worth it

The only reason for this is because of politics.

Re:It's just business - nothing personal

[Registered Coward v2]

Foisting your politics on your customers, eh? Stripe was one of my favorite services - to the point I never even thought about using any other payment processor. I see that may need to change...

Who said it has anything to do with politics? I support gun rights and I probably would have made the same decision. The potential liability and government oversight is simply not worth it. They are making a very sane and reasonable business decision. Just because it conflicts with your political beliefs doesn't mean it is a political decision. They might even share your political beliefs but still have come to the same reasoned business decision that the downside outweighs the upside.

Plus I should point out that you are trying to foist your politics off on Stripe. Why should they be forced to share your political beliefs? Why should they be forced to pick a side?

Stop trying to be reasonable, this is /. I agree that companies often make decision based on risks to the company; decisions that are independent of politics. For example, many of the local gun shops do not allow firearms to be carried by the customer, yet they certainly support gun rights. Many gun shows do not allow people to carry as well. Even the NRA does not allow visitors to carry firearms into their building, though they may have changed that policy recently. I think it is clear that business decisions concerning risk often outweigh politics.

Re:It's just business - nothing personal

[swillden]

The potential liability and government oversight is simply not worth it.

What potential liability and government oversight? Cite me a single example of a payment service being named in a firearm-related lawsuit, or being a target of a BATFE investigation, for anything other than actual lawbreaking on the part of the service provider.

Re:It's just business - nothing personal

[Bob9113]

Why should [Stripe] be forced to pick a side?

The reality is they probably were. Agreed it is probably not Stripe's choice -- but if it is, I feel that all payment processors have a duty to not pick and choose the businesses they will cut off. Trade and the economy are too important to allow payment gateways to act as a choke point for morality enforcement. If the business is illegal, it should be shut down. If it is not, all businesses should have equal right and opportunity to engage in trade.

Privately operated toll bridges shouldn't be allowed to ban FedEx trucks, electric companies shouldn't be allowed to refuse service to stores that sell cigarettes, ISPs shouldn't be allowed to throttle content providers who don't pay extra, and payment processors shouldn't be allowed to enforce morality.

But, again, I think this was more likely DOJ or ATF bullying, not Stripe's choice.

Re:It's just business - nothing personal

[toxicity69]

Plus I should point out that you are trying to foist your politics off on Stripe. Why should they be forced to share your political beliefs? Why should they be forced to pick a side?

Because he is (was) paying them. Would you pay for the services of some company that does things you abhor, when there are competitors you could go with that don't do those things?

Re:It's just business - nothing personal

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that in the legal definition they don't make weapons. So either they don't understand the law (hard to believe if they green lighted this operation to start with), or they're buckling under pressure from an outside source.

Re:It's just business - nothing personal

[argStyopa]

I try not to use the word "entitled" at all, but a consumer is surely entitled to choose where they spend their money, for whatever reason.

Similarly, a company should be likewise able to offer or refuse its services freely as well; of course, we as a country have decided that isn't legal - a company cannot, for example, refuse its service to homosexuals, or blacks, or women.

So before you start drawing moral equivalence, you might want to recognize that there is a clearly different context both legally and morally between a consumer choosing to spend their money (or not) , and a business arbitrarily refusing service to another business doing what is, at least today, perfectly legal.

Hobby Lobby

[Anonymous Coward]

If Stripe could provide contraceptives for Hobby Lobbies employees, and Hobby Lobby could accept payment for Wilson's gun parts, then all corporations can be happy in their beliefs and everyone will be happy.

Re:I now know who I won't ever use for online paym

[Anonymous Coward]

They're not rights when you're talking about negotiations between corporations. You are, of course, welcome to not use stripe for your payment services. I suspect Stripe is so worried about losing your non-existent business they're - at this very moment - trying to figure out how to win you back.

Tell that to a wedding chapel that doesn't want to perform gay weddings.

What do traditional firearm shops use

[cdrudge]

Having never been in a firearms store, let alone purchase one, what do "real" firearm shops use as a payment processor? Surely they take credit cards, don't they?

Stripe makes it clear that they don't want to participate in transactions for regulated products and services. I don't see what the problem with that is.

Re:What do traditional firearm shops use

[Anonymous Coward]

Other than a milling machine is not regulated.

Re:What do traditional firearm shops use

[CanHasDIY]

My inlaws use Square, and they've never had a problem processing payments.

Re:What do traditional firearm shops use

[Anonymous Coward]

Having never been in a firearms store, let alone purchase one, what do "real" firearm shops use as a payment processor? Surely they take credit cards, don't they?

Stripe makes it clear that they don't want to participate in transactions for regulated products and services. I don't see what the problem with that is.

I use Elavon they have no issues with a gun business.

Re:What do traditional firearm shops use

[Anonymous Coward]

They would probably just use the standard CC terminals, nothing fancy.

Re:What do traditional firearm shops use

[jafiwam]

My inlaws use Square, and they've never had a problem processing payments.

If they deal with firearms they should do a little research. Square has refused to work with various types of firearm businesses in the past. If they sell doggie biscuits or something, no big deal.

Re:What do traditional firearm shops use

[CanHasDIY]

They run pawn shops, maybe the fact that firearms are only a portion of their sales has something to do with it.

Author is wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL, but as far as I know - legally speaking, what the Ghost Gunner makes is in fact a weapon. The lower receiver of the AR-15 is the part that is tracked with a serial number, and in the eyes of the law is "the weapon" - the rest of the components are attached to the lower receiver, and the other parts are not usable as a functioning weapon without the lower receiver.

The Ghost Gunner machine is designed to take so-called "80% registers" - incomplete lower registers that aren't legally considered weapons yet and therefore aren't tracked, numbered, or registered - and finish milling them to make them into functional components. Thus, it enables manufacture of the controlled component of an AR-15 without applying a serial number or doing any sort of registration of the weapon, allowing someone to create a completely unregistered rifle piece-by-piece.

Re:Author is wrong.

[CanHasDIY]

The Ghost Gunner machine is designed to take so-called "80% registers" - incomplete lower registers that aren't legally considered weapons yet and therefore aren't tracked, numbered, or registered - and finish milling them to make them into functional components. Thus, it enables manufacture of the controlled component of an AR-15 without applying a serial number or doing any sort of registration of the weapon, allowing someone to create a completely unregistered rifle piece-by-piece.

Which is all perfectly legal.

Basically the guy made a machine that take the place of "me and my drill press." Not really sure what the hubbub is all about.

He can do better than 2.9% + 30 cents anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm always amazed at the blind fanboy attitude towards Stripe. Act geek friendly, throw out a decent api, and everyone is lining up to get fleeced.

2.9% + 30 cents is a crazy ripoff. Even Paypal's "Paypal Pro" does better than that, which should tell you something.

Re:Teh Gunz an' Freeeeeeeedom!

[jythie]

I think the libertarian program is that private power is ok as long as it is being used the 'right' way. As soon as it is being used the 'wrong' way it is somehow the government's fault behind the scenes, or the private power is simply a traitor to freedom.

Online payment firms can dictate what we sell?

[fustakrakich]

There is where Bitcion is supposed to come in, no? As circumvention of this and the banks? Can we say miserable failure?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Just wait till it's birth control

[gelfling]

THEN liberals will scream their cyber rights are being violated.

Re:Just wait till it's birth control

[Jawnn]

You mean just like how Sarah Palin insists that here "rights" are violated with a medial outlet refuses to give air/print to her whacko brand of politics? Yes? Then no. You are incorrect, because most of the liberals I know understand the difference between Constitutional rights and the privilege of using someone else's elevated platform.

Re:Just wait till it's birth control

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like how women currently have to ask permission then get a note from their doctor get it?

Totally legal

[Beer_Smurf]

It is totally legal to build for yourself any gun that you are allowed to own.
If I use a CNC mill, a file and hand drill, a 3D printer or this guy's tool on an unfinished lower it doesn't matter.
It is also totally illegal to build anything you are prohibited from owning.
Guns are and always have been, easy to build
The fearmongering over this subject is amazing.

Please send a check or money order ...

[davidwr]

So I guess if I want to buy something from him now, I have to send him a check or money order.

How quaint.

Picts or it didn't happen

[davidwr]

At least, not officially.

So Cody Wilson gets more free press.

[mark_reh]

That guy can't lose. No matter what he says or does he comes away with more free advertising/press.
For his next innovation, a 3D printed drone that fires a 3D printed gun...

The Response

[Anonymous Coward]

I imagine the response will be something like "Stripe will suffer dearly for their attempts to assert control over something beyond their right to do. We are Anonymous, we do not forgive, we do not forget".

Something similar happened to Mastercard, Visa and Paypal.

This is Business

[Anonymous Coward]

...tip-toeing the line between legal and illegal...

Care to explain how he's "tip-toeing the line"? Nothing he's doing is remotely illegal.
He's selling a small milling machine. - Legal
Said milling machine is appropriate for finishing '80%' lowers. - Legal
Said milling machine can, given the proper program, be used for anything else that will fit within its size constraints. - Legal

Cody Wilson

[Anonymous Coward]

More often than not it seems that Cody Wilson is trying to provoke a backlash than actually promote gun rights. Or maybe it is just marketing.

Not an accident

[Anonymous Coward]

This wasn't an accident, its deliberate manipulation on Cody's part to get more free publicity.

Another evil by Obama Administration

[mi]

his online payment processor Stripe has decided that his companies, all of them, qualify as forbidden "weapons and munitions; gunpowder and other explosives" services.

This is yet another manifestation of the tactics employed by Obama's Justice Department. Unable to outlaw a particular activity (such as ammunition sales, or escort services — or even cigar-sales) itself, they lean on banks and payment-processors threatening them with audits if they don't stop serving the "undesirable" merchants and services-providers. The name is "Operation Chokepoint" and it has been in the news for a while. About time it made it to Slashdot too.

This — "the most technologically-advanced Administration in history" — is what all the cool kids (not a few /.-ers among them) voted for in 2008 and 2012...

Note, the DoJ is not even alleging any illegality — only "high likelihood" thereof. Nor are they threatening actual prosecution — only an audit. Unfortunately, the audits themselves — even if you end up fully clean at the end — are sufficiently painful and expensive, that banks choose to drop the few clients to avoid the experience.

It is particularly evil, because it is not the result of a prosecution, that is used to cow the victims to comply with the government's whim, but the very process itself. Results, you see, require the Executive to argue its point in front of the skeptical Judiciary. The process, however, can be made very painful without any repercussions — DoJ don't need to prove anything to cause a person or a company as much pain as they please.

Re:Another evil by Obama Administration

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, this is not unique to this administration. Look up the story of how the hardcore Insex site and company was shut down using on the same tactics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insex#Shutdown

Re:Another evil by Obama Administration

[mi]

Insex site and company was shut down using on the same tactics.

Not the same at all. Insex was targeted directly (rather than forcing their bank to close their accounts) — and not for suspected tax or accounting irregularities, but for the actual content they produced.

You and I may disapprove of the efforts to shut down Insex', but it was a straightforward prosecution of what the prosecutors believed was illegal (and disgusting) activity.

Obama/Holder would've gone after Insex' banker(s) and credit-card processor(s) — threatening them with audits — without touching Insex directly.

Not a violation of terms as Stripe's claiming.

[Svartalf]

He should outright sue. It isn't anything except a very high quality micro-CNC machine. It's called a Ghost Gunner because of one of the intended purposes. As such, they just breached agreement on their end without cause and he has cause.

Re:Cody Wilson is mentally ill

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish that somebody would put you to the mental institution. Government chill as you are...

Lucky Stripe

[Anonymous Coward]

Luckily for Stripe, they're not beholden to some government definition of what they, as a corporation, decide NOT to process transactions for. ....Their terms of service, their call.

Yes exactly. And they can decide on a common sense basis rather than a strict legal basis.

This fucks over both de facto arms dealers and lawyers in one stroke, what's not to like?

Actually, the law is quite interesting...

[Overzeetop]

Actually, this is where the law gets interesting. You can build a program to rip a DVD to your hard drive, and you can build a program to decode the CSS encoding to allow it on commercial discs, and you are allowed - though fair use - to rip discs you purchase to your home computer. BUT it is illegal to sell that program to anyone else - it's considered trafficking. It's a catch-22 in the law - it's legal to do (ripping/decoding), but you must do it yourself; nobody can help you.

If you'd like an example, you can look up the woes of Kaleidescape. What they do is perfectly legal for the end user, and has been determined to be illegal if you sell it, even though what the end user does is actually legal.

Note that this is a particular law, and is not involved in firearms, but the CONCEPT is nearly identical.

Bitcoin...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah? You mean a check in the mail won't do anymore?

Now we get to hear

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I know (and I majored in history), no army of upstart citizens ever overthrew a government, tyrannical or otherwise, without either support by a faction within the country's military or by a foreign government.

The American Revolution is a great example. Not only did the revolution have a regular army headed by an established general (Washington), it had military support (crucially including naval action) from France.

A country like Switzerland, full of guns and citizens trained to use them in combat, does give pause to anyone considering invading your country. That's not much of a concern, though, when you have the world's most powerful military.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion