gun insurance now banned in Washington state

Status
Not open for further replies.

silicosys4

Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
3,611
"Washington State Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler on Tuesday announced a ban "on the sale of illegal insurance policies branded by the National Rifle Association (NRA)," clearly referencing NRA's Guard Guard Insurance. According to Kreidler, the insurance policies are illegal because "they insure unlawful activity."

“When it comes to insurance products associated with the NRA, it’s buyer beware,” Kreidler said. “The attempt to insure a criminal act is a rip-off for consumers. The policies sold are deceptive and dishonest. I would be remiss as the state’s insurance regulator if I didn’t shut them down.”"

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethb...ce-commissioner-assumes-you-are-a-cr-n2539301
 
Our beloved state is circling the drain in it's progression to becoming California north. So sad. Don't know if I can talk my wife into relocating to a free state, but I will keep trying.
 
I am kind of wondering what "Illegal Insurance Policies" are. It seems ironic as these days the insurance companies are starting to dictate lifestyles or threaten cancellation. Now the politicians are nipping at their heals by banning certain types of insurance. Perhaps between the two of them they will ban each other out of existence. With no effort on our part.
 
Gun insurance isn’t banned. Insurance for your actions while carrying a gun is banned.
yes I agree, That's exactly what the Insurance commissioner stated. We all need to take the time to read and fully understand before we start going off on a tirade! At first glance and the way the article was presented, it belied the real facts.
 
Gun insurance isn’t banned. Insurance for your actions while carrying a gun is banned.

No.

Gun insurance for your illegal actions is banned. Since when do you not have a legal right to defend yourself with a firearm....in any state?

A good example would be a shooting while carrying a concealed weapon without the proper permit. My ins. clearly states that they aren't going to defend you if you aren't licensed to carry if that's a state law.

I think NRA insurance was misleading some people.
 
Last edited:
It would seem that it should be possible to design an insurance policy that works for a law-abiding person who gets into a defense situation, has it investigated properly and determined to be a legitimate use of a firearm, and then works, but if it's found to be illegal, does not.

Is the NRA to stupid to figure this out ..... or is this a govt. action intended to do injury into honest gun owners?
 
Our beloved state is circling the drain in it's progression to becoming California north. So sad. Don't know if I can talk my wife into relocating to a free state, but I will keep trying.

It's almost like the west coast is being purposefully softened in preparation for something.
  • disarming civilians
  • conservative strongholds burned down
  • population disunified through immigration
  • a culture which celebrates weakness and aberrance
  • Incompetents placed in high offices
  • Asinine policies and legislation
It's really sort of a microcosm for the entire Western world, but more focused and intense there; and I think, for a reason.
 
CoalTrain49 writes:

Gun insurance for your illegal actions is banned. Since when do you not have a legal right to defend yourself with a firearm....in any state?

It's unlawful to shoot, shoot at, or threaten to shoot (or shoot at), another person in all states. Situations in which one does so in self-defense are not excepted from the law; they are accepted by the law, so to speak. This is what is known as a "necessity defense", in which "the law" recognizes that to follow it to the letter would have been unreasonable. The act itself isn't deemed to have been legal, only legally justified.

So, yes, the policies they're after would, in fact, be insuring those committing an "illegal act" (makes me wonder if they're after auto insurance policies, too, since they frequently cover drivers who cause accidents while committing traffic violations.)

I'm guessing that that is part of their argument, though I don't get the idea of "banning illegal" anything. Was "illegal insurance" legal prior to this new legislation?
 
So, if the Insurance Commissioner is getting accosted, beaten, robbed, stabbed, whatever, he or she wouldn’t want someone doing something “illegal” to save his / her life? Got it.
So, no one should ever come to their aid.
 
It is not clear to me that what the NRA is selling is even insurance. They probably should stop calling it that.
 
We live in Washington State.
My opinion is the west coast is being used as a pitrie dish by the gun grabbers.
In our state, recent ballot initiatives have caused mass confusion. I then see the same language applied by law makers in other states.
If they make law abiding people criminals due to complex regulation, fewer people will participate or even own firearms. Its all in their long range plan. Stinks of social engineering.
 
The NRA isn't the best insurance out there anyway. There's a good WA company that a lot of people use, including me.

https://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/en/

Sounds reasonable.

Yep, I suspect that it's the "insurance" aspect that is starting to create the problems in some states.

I went with a CA organization for peace officers that also covers retired peace officers who were members during their career. It isn't an "insurance policy", but strictly offers LDF (Legal Defense Fund) coverage by providing qualified attorneys 24/7 in the event a member uses a lawfully carried firearm in self defense. I chose it because it covers me in my resident state (CA), as well as if traveling and using a LEOSA weapon out-of-state.

https://porac.org/membership-inform...-associate-membership/firearms-coverage-faqs/
 
No sweat.

Logically then, every cop in Washington should now be INDIVIDUALLY LIABLE for any shooting related judgments or settlements, and have his assets subject to attachment for damages awarded.

Unless WA is significantly different than Texas (the state with whom I am familiar with this particular chunk of law), they are. However there is probably something in the WA laws, that provides some form of civil immunity if it's determined that their shooting is a "good shoot." That's in quotes, because I'm not going to research WA law to quote specifically what all might pertain. In Texas this is "official immunity" and provides a peace officer immunity to a state civil tort for a use of force. If the peace officer can not establish their official immunity (it's a three prong test), they are liable just like anyone else.

Believe me a lot of officers get individual legal defense fund memberships, or pay into a union/association specifically for this reason. While peace officers potentially have certain legal protections not available to the ordinary citizen, they absolutely do face the exact same potential issues of a civil lawsuits and criminal charges.
 
Unless WA is significantly different than Texas (the state with whom I am familiar with this particular chunk of law), they are. However there is probably something in the WA laws, that provides some form of civil immunity if it's determined that their shooting is a "good shoot." That's in quotes, because I'm not going to research WA law to quote specifically what all might pertain. In Texas this is "official immunity" and provides a peace officer immunity to a state civil tort for a use of force. If the peace officer can not establish their official immunity (it's a three prong test), they are liable just like anyone else.

Believe me a lot of officers get individual legal defense fund memberships, or pay into a union/association specifically for this reason. While peace officers potentially have certain legal protections not available to the ordinary citizen, they absolutely do face the exact same potential issues of a civil lawsuits and criminal charges.
No insurance, no legal representation on the taxpayers' dime.

One law for everybody.
 
Does anyone have more info on the NRA's response beyond the one bit in the townhall.com link? I'm not a big fan of the NRA, but I trust them a lot more than I trust the WA state government at this point (at least on this topic). Which is a very sad state of affairs indeed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top