Absolute crap and total lies. Paypal is not worrried about lawsuits. They just hate guns and, like most left wing gun haters, want to make life as difficult as is within their power for people who sell guns. Given the lack of success of "your gun killed my husband, wife, child, or whoever lawsuits, even against actual gunmakers and gun sellers (unless a gun was sold in violation of the law) there is no way in the world anyone could even get a court to entertain a suit against a company that merely transferred money that was the proceeds of a firearm sale. Any such suit would result in a summary dismissal without any trial. If a suit against the money handler were even possible, numerous banks would have been sued, not to mention the several on line gun auction sites. Furthermore,the only things that could even possibly trigger any attempted lawsuit against anyone would be a complete firearm or a receiver, both of which can be traced and whose history can be reconstructed. Paypal's acceptable use policy says that firearms and "certain firearm parts" cannot be paid for through Paypal. Nowhere can I find any definition or list of what those certain parts are. This undefined category allows them to declare transactions for ANY firearm part to be unacceptable under the trems of their stated policy. I personally know of one case where Paypal PERMANENTLY revoked someone's account for receiving payment for, of all things, a Glock recoil spring, and sequestered all of the funds in his account (not just those for the spring) for 60 days. They did this without any warning whatsoever, to someone who had over 1,000 trouble free transactions over Ebay, and over 500 through Paypal, and this was his first "offense". When he pointed out that the item was "Ebay legal" (in fact, I believe it had been sold on Ebay), they responded that even though they were owned by Ebay they were a seperate company and had their own policies. He asked them to reconsider the account revocation more than once, with no success. Even if Paypal does have someone in their legal department who is so ignorant of case law and legal precedents, and even black ink law, that he tells them they can be sued if they handle payment for a firearm, nobody could be so ignorant as to think that handling the funds for a recoil spring could ever have that result. These are not the actions of a firm worried about any law suit. These are the actions of a firm attempting to do everything within its power to negatively affect commerce in guns and gun parts. If Paypal feels that this is what is proper, they certainly have the right to feel that way, no matter who thinks they shouldn't. And they have every right to limit the types of transactions they wish to handle, as long as they tell people ahead of time what those types of transactions are. So why doesn't their policy just say that any and all gun parts and components transactions are banned? Why do they use such an ambiguous, and never explained, term as "certain firearm parts"? Personally, and this IS only a personal conclusion, I believe that they just don't have the guts to say up front what they're really doing because they fear that the incredibly numerous gun owners in this country might just be annoyed enough to boycott Paypal. In fact, I defy Paypal to post this comment, and, if they still maintain that they are not anti-gun, explain why someone was punished for receiving payment for such an innocuous part as a recoil spring.
... View more
