3 other states have joined NY in attacking NRA insurance

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

old lady new shooter

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2015
Messages
30,563
Not sure if this is the correct section for this, if not, mods please move.

Fox News is reporting that California, New Jersey, and Washington state have joined NY in attacking the NRA by going after the Carry Guard insurance they recently stated selling. NY was honest about their motivation (although Cuomo lies about the purpose of the insurance, saying it insures intentional illegal actions) but WA and CA claim their only motivation is that the policy issuers are not properly registered to sell insurance in their respective states. (The article did not discuss NJ's motivation.)

I find it hard to believe the NRA wouldn't have dotted every i and crossed every t needed to legally sell the insurance in every jurisdiction but I guess if they didn't they can correct that, after which we would see whether WA and CA would try other tactics.

NRA is suing NY saying they are practicing "viewpoint discrimination" which is prohibited under the First Amendment. The Cuomo administration has filed a motion to dismiss.

Any opinions here as to whether NY could possibly have any valid defense in the lawsuit? Especially after Cuomo has publicly stated he wants to bankrupt the NRA? If the NY court dismisses, can the NRA appeal to SCOTUS? Anybody know any details of what facets of WA and CA law the NRA is accused of failing to comply with?

The Fox article is at https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cu...ting-insurance-program-spreads-to-more-states
 
Only prediction I will give is that it will end up in front of the US Supreme Court and hopefully, they tell the governors of NY, NJ, and CA to take a flying leap off Moonbeam's failed high speed train. If they win, I can see this will open a flood of possible lawsuits against other organizations known to be conservative and liberal, that a governor or attorney general does not agree with.
 
old lady new shooter said:
NRA is suing NY saying they are practicing "viewpoint discrimination" which is prohibited under the First Amendment. The Cuomo administration has filed a motion to dismiss.

Any opinions here as to whether NY could possibly have any valid defense in the lawsuit?
Click to expand...

"Any valid defense?" It's the NRA that is advancing uphill here. I think they have a good theory and a chance to prevail, but regulating what insurance products are permissible is classic state-level regulation. As is the prohibition against insuring against intentional wrongdoing... that's common for states to prohibit.

Of course, this just illustrates how ignorant many anti-gunners or well-intentioned fence-sitters are when they say that gun ownership should be subject to similar insurance requirements as cars. Sounds kind of reasonable at first hearing until you realize that almost all injuries (to both persons and properties) involving cars is as a result of accidents/unintentional acts (very few people go out looking to ram things with the cars they are driving), whereas most serious injuries involving guns are intentional (most gun-involved deaths are suicides, and another big chunk are homicide... with comparatively few accidental gun-involved deaths). So this "insurance," which most states would prohibit from covering instances of murder, wouldn't pay out victims of an armed robbery or a mass shooting. It all goes nowhere.
 
ATLDave said:
"Any valid defense?" It's the NRA that is advancing uphill here. I think they have a good theory and a chance to prevail, but regulating what insurance products are permissible is classic state-level regulation. As is the prohibition against insuring against intentional wrongdoing... that's common for states to prohibit.

Of course, this just illustrates how ignorant many anti-gunners or well-intentioned fence-sitters are when they say that gun ownership should be subject to similar insurance requirements as cars. Sounds kind of reasonable at first hearing until you realize that almost all injuries (to both persons and properties) involving cars is as a result of accidents/unintentional acts (very few people go out looking to ram things with the cars they are driving), whereas most serious injuries involving guns are intentional (most gun-involved deaths are suicides, and another big chunk are homicide... with comparatively few accidental gun-involved deaths). So this "insurance," which most states would prohibit from covering instances of murder, wouldn't pay out victims of an armed robbery or a mass shooting. It all goes nowhere.
Click to expand...
The insurance is NOT against "intentional illegal actions" as Cuomo asserted, it is for people who use a firearm in self-defense. Self-defense is not an illegal action. I haven't looked at the Carry Guard plan but when I was looking at other carry insurance awhile back all of them excluded criminal use.
 
I didn't say Cuomo was right, just that, to many judges, this will look like garden variety regulation of insurance products... again, something states do all the time and have a great deal of latitude in. This is far from a slam-dunk. The NRA has an uphill fight. They may be right, but they have an uphill fight.
 
dh1633pm said:
Our taxpayer money being wasted as usual. Cuomo wants to be president, but isn't really liked north of NYC. His intentions are to bankrupt the NRA. He says it loudly and often.
Click to expand...
....... +1...........Along with publicly stating that conservatives "Have no place in the state of New York..... Because that's not who New Yorkers are"...... His comments on the NRA and conservatives sums up his position very well.
 
old lady new shooter said:
... Anybody know any details of what facets of WA and CA law the NRA is accused of failing to comply with?

The Fox article is at https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cu...ting-insurance-program-spreads-to-more-states
Click to expand...

Dunno about the CA insurance thing, as I get mine through PORAC as a retired member who buys LDF (legal defense fund) coverage. Same sort of coverage I had when I was working, but back then it was provided (purchased) by my union and covered a lot more than just if I'd used a firearm in my official capacity and duties. Now it's just for if I ever have to use a retirement weapon inside the state, as well as if carried and used under LEOSA.

I'd suspect that contacting the state's insurance commissioner and having the matter addressed by the company's attorneys could probably help resolve whatever issues exist. Different states have different requirements in place when insurance companies want to sell their products across state lines.
 
don't forget that Cuomo is also trying to mess up NRA's ability to access banking services
 
From a very brief session of websurfing on this topic, I came up with two main issues, both of which I have opinions on (for what that's worth) ...

First is Cuomo's contention that this insurance protects against "intentional illegal acts." That doesn't pass the smell test. First of all, no act is illegal until it has been proven so in court. Denial of a viable means of funding one's legal defense sounds an awful lot like denial of due process to me.

Second, there's a technicality involved regarding licensure to sell insurance. True, the NRA is not licensed to sell insurance. That's why they're using an underwriting partner. However, they are taking a portion of the premiums paid for these policies. I believe that they may be on the wrong side of the law there, but it certainly isn't something that couldn't be corrected by getting their paperwork in order.
 
As I understand them, none of the self defense "insurance" programs meets the legal definition of insurance. If that's correct, no state insurance regulator has any authority over them.
 
toivo said:
From a very brief session of websurfing on this topic, I came up with two main issues, both of which I have opinions on (for what that's worth) ...

First is Cuomo's contention that this insurance protects against "intentional illegal acts." That doesn't pass the smell test. First of all, no act is illegal until it has been proven so in court. Denial of a viable means of funding one's legal defense sounds an awful lot like denial of due process to me.

Second, there's a technicality involved regarding licensure to sell insurance. True, the NRA is not licensed to sell insurance. That's why they're using an underwriting partner. However, they are taking a portion of the premiums paid for these policies. I believe that they may be on the wrong side of the law there, but it certainly isn't something that couldn't be corrected by getting their paperwork in order.
Click to expand...

On your second point, isn't that exactly what AARP does when it sells health, life and liability insurance while collecting fees for doing so? And if the NRA is found guilty of it, will this not affect the AARP? I'm just asking, I have no idea but sounds right to me.
 
RETG said:
On your second point, isn't that exactly what AARP does when it sells health, life and liability insurance while collecting fees for doing so? And if the NRA is found guilty of it, will this not affect the AARP? I'm just asking, I have no idea but sounds right to me.
Click to expand...
It certainly sounds like the same thing to me. Is it possible that AARP is licensed to sell insurance? And if so, why shouldn't the NRA get licensed too?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

hps1
  • Locked
Could NRA Members Intervene To Stop NY Suit To Dissolve The NRA?
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
GEM
G
M
  • Locked
Oh look (yawn), GOA and JPFO are attacking NRA again
2 3
Replies
65
Views
2K
KMKeller
K
HKGuns
  • Locked
If you don't vote like a gun owner, YOU SUCK!
2 3 4
Replies
80
Views
3K
Sean Hofhine
S
Sebastian the Ibis
  • Locked
The NRA's interference in RTKBA litigation
Replies
21
Views
5K
Art Eatman
A
C
  • Locked
NRA Moves to Circumvent Unconstitional Campaing Finance
Replies
4
Views
592
Waitone
W
Back
Top