Yup. No matter what happened to or with any gun after one of its parts, or even the entire gun, had been paid for via Paypal, there is no way Paypal could be liable for anyhting. However, it appears that they have created their own liability by taking action against users who "violate" this ridiculously ambiguous policy, including those who have used Paypal to handle payments for sales of items which were allowed at, and in fact sold through, Ebay. It is a basic principle of contract law that no penalty can be implemented against a party to a contract unless the things which can trigger such action are included in the contract. Terminology which would lead to confusion and uncertainty on the part of a reasonable person does not fill the bill. In this case, the fact that the parent company, Ebay, has the same policy, but one which DOES go on to explain which parts are disallowed, it becomes clear that this ambiguity was intentionally created by Paypal, knowing full well that many people are led to handle the financial aspects of Ebay sales through Paypal, and that such people would most likely rely on what Ebay allows in order to determine what is allowed at Paypal. This makes it, in my opinion, an egregious act, subjecting Paypal to to liability for punitive damages above and beyond whatever normally compensible losses the user may have incurred as a result of Paypal's sanctions against him. This is a perfect example of both corporate deceit and corporate arrogance, deceit in claiming that their policy is not completely anti gun, and arrrogance in believing that they can do whatever they like, ignoring inconsequential little things such as contract law. I can only hope that someone who has been damaged as a result of enforcement of this inadequate policy initiates legal action against Paypal. At the very least, such an action should force Paypal to either back off on the thing or to clearly state that using Paypal for payment for the sale of of any and all firearme parts are considered to be an inappropriate use. (As a privately owned, non-governmental entity, they can, after all, have whatever policy they wish, as long as it is clearly stated to the individual before he accepts and agrees to their rules.) That would stop them from trying to pretend that they are not entirely anti gun in order to keep the business of persons who might be very upset over such a policy. Right now, the vast majority of Paypal users use it because of convenience, security, and having been directed to Paypal by Ebay and other sites. Paypal's ambiguous policy and ludicrous explanations are clearly intended to avoid seriously offending a large portion of those users. If Paypal is forced to be honest about its intentions, it may well result in large numbers of users migrating to a different internet based transaaction service, as you suggest.
... View more