I feel the same way and that sucks because I've got a new grandson and namesake in Seattle I haven't met yet.
gun insurance now banned in Washington state
- Thread starter silicosys4
- Start date
- Status
I feel the same way and that sucks because I've got a new grandson and namesake in Seattle I haven't met yet.
Jenrick
Member
Perhaps you misunderstood me. A peace officer doesn't have automatic representation on the taxpayers dime, any more so than everyone being entitled to a public defender in criminal court. An officer will receive representation from the city or agency so long as it bolsters the cities or agencies case. As soon as counsel decides that they are better off without the officer, they are cut loose. Often times the first action an agency will take is to separate from the officer, thus putting the entire burden of defending against a civil suite on the officer. This is no different than a major corporation being sued, there is nothing unusual here.
Now if you want to argue the merits of having some sort of federal or state immunity from civil suite for action taken during the course of one's duties as a peace officer, you'll need to take that up with the SCOTUS.
Deanimator
Member
I'm strictly on my own, regardless and the proponents of this legislation don't even want me to have insurance against such circumstances.
If I'm on my own and out of pocket sans insurance, so too should be the police.
Bob Ferguson?"Pleased to meet you! Won't you guess my name?"
Great ... now that song is stuck in my head.
CoalTrain49
Member
CoalTrain49
Member
I can't blame you. I don't go to Seattle either. But if I did you can bet your last dollar I would carry. It's a real s*** hole. Used to live there. Cops are a**holes and the gangbangers are even worse.
Old Dog
Member
Well, that's a shame that folks feel that way because of the recent spate of stupid initiatives that became law and the fact that Seattle has become loonier than Berkeley. This state has probably more natural beauty with its ocean shoreline, two mountain ranges, rain forests, rivers, Puget Sound and even its deserts than is contained in any single other one state.
For years we had far better gun laws than states such as Texas. Open carry is actually pretty common throughout the state, suppressors are legal, CPLs are shall-issue, inexpensive and there's no training requirement. Ranges and gun clubs are plentiful, as well as gun shops and public land where shooting is legal. We still have state preemption law on the books, the state constitution has stronger wording than the 2nd Amendment with regard to RKBA and it'll take a lot to change all this.
Don't judge us based solely on King County and a couple recently passed bad laws. The gun culture up here is still alive and kicking, and we're gonna do a better job holding the line in the future.
Deanimator
Member
Don't hold the line. Roll it back.
Never accept anything as a final defeat. The other side doesn't.
We just humiliated John Kasich with a veto override, just as we did Bob Taft, to get shall issue concealed carry.
Old Dog,
I agree that Washington State has natural beauty, that can be said about many states.
I was born here and have lived here most of my life.
Like others, I have seen a very concentrated push with big in and out of state money being applied to the recent ballot initiatives.
I hope you are correct. I am not sure that our state constituition is safe in this political environment.
We have been active in our resistance but we do not have Microsoft money. Young people blindly follow social media from Bloomberg and others.
Molon Labe
Yes, there are a lot of "loonies & gangbangers" here in Seattle. Most of them weren't born here (or even in the State), have lived here less than 10 years (hello CA) and want the City, County and State to give them a free ride. I've lived and worked here for 55 years and, yes, the politicians are selling us all down the river because the parasites will vote them into office.
Choctaw
Member
I once made a comment on this site about being glad I was from the free state of Texas. I had someone from Washington State clean my clock about how Texas was just as restrictive. Well, no it's not but I truly feel for you guys. I'm sorry this is happening there.
JONWILL
Member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2017
- Messages
- 938
Remember the book “Animal Farm” by George Owell.
“All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others”
Old Dog
Member
And here's a start: two of our Eastern Washington legislators have again introduced a bill to split Washington state in half, with the Eastern half becoming the state of "Liberty."
https://komonews.com/news/local/law...lit-wash-in-half-create-51st-state-of-liberty
"They argue that the culture, lifestyles, and economies of Eastern and Western Washington are so radically different that the state should be divided in half.
The Liberty State website says that the new state would be founded on the principles of lower taxes, limited government, economic prosperity and greater freedom."
Doubtful the new state's AG would try and come up with the sort of nonsense reported in the OP; as noted, the culture and lifestyles in Eastern WA are far different from the West side of the state, and it's far more gun-friendly over the other side of the mountains.
We can dream. I'd live in a state named Liberty.
https://komonews.com/news/local/law...lit-wash-in-half-create-51st-state-of-liberty
"They argue that the culture, lifestyles, and economies of Eastern and Western Washington are so radically different that the state should be divided in half.
The Liberty State website says that the new state would be founded on the principles of lower taxes, limited government, economic prosperity and greater freedom."
Doubtful the new state's AG would try and come up with the sort of nonsense reported in the OP; as noted, the culture and lifestyles in Eastern WA are far different from the West side of the state, and it's far more gun-friendly over the other side of the mountains.
We can dream. I'd live in a state named Liberty.
CapnMac
Member
Ok, color me confused. I thought the "nra endorsed" GunGuard was insurance against theft or loss by fire or other disaster/misadventure.
Said insurance being denied State certification in NYS and a coupe of other places from, by my observation only, not providing gladhanding to various state insurance agencies.
Does the NRA actually endorse any "carry" insurance?
That latter is a bit of a bugabear in that the alleged statement infers that all "carry" is illegal, whether any action with the arm occurs or not. Which is sore troubling to consider a State Official so opining.
Mind, political grandstanding aside, the notion that insuring one's expensive chattels against loss or misadventure might be prime facie be illegal is, sadly, well within my expectations of the intelligence of the political class.
Said insurance being denied State certification in NYS and a coupe of other places from, by my observation only, not providing gladhanding to various state insurance agencies.
Does the NRA actually endorse any "carry" insurance?
That latter is a bit of a bugabear in that the alleged statement infers that all "carry" is illegal, whether any action with the arm occurs or not. Which is sore troubling to consider a State Official so opining.
Mind, political grandstanding aside, the notion that insuring one's expensive chattels against loss or misadventure might be prime facie be illegal is, sadly, well within my expectations of the intelligence of the political class.
CapnMac
Member
Well, most do, to some extent. The various State Insurance Boards have all sorts of standards about what policies are permitted, what amounts--minimum and maximum--are required, and so on.
And, that's not without some logic. Only logical that Florida might require higher minimums for wind and storm and water damage than, say, Arizona. But, AZ, CA, NV, etc. might require fire insurance beyond that needing in Minnesota or Wisconsin. Now, the State boards generally meet and find agreement amongst themselves to allow for interstate commerce, travel and the like. But, the policies do differ. And where such differences occur, there is power to be taken or given in allowing or disallowing various insurance agencies, small, large, and even huge to operate in that particular state.
We, rightfully, complain about the the tangle of gun laws; insurance guys have galaxies and universes of laws to navigate.
SSN Vet
Member
I very much hope the NRA fights this and wins.
Washington's lib-**** political elites need a big slap down via. a court ruling.
Washington's lib-**** political elites need a big slap down via. a court ruling.
The claim that self defense "insurance" is insurance for deliberate criminal acts is garbage. None of them do that. All they promise to do is pay for a lawyer to defend you in court and that's only if they believe your actions were legal. If convicted, they won't keep you out of prison.
The purpose for banning such policies is to deprive poor people of adequate legal representation and to bankrupt middle class people. (I guess they have no problem with it if you're a millionaire.)
The purpose for banning such policies is to deprive poor people of adequate legal representation and to bankrupt middle class people. (I guess they have no problem with it if you're a millionaire.)
Deanimator
Member
It's an attempt to keep people disarmed, passive and at the mercy of violent criminals who are the REAL constituency of the proponents.
I think it's more a matter of keeping people passive and at the mercy of prosecutors who believe the law is whatever they think it should be independent of the legislature and courts. If a person does something of which they disapprove, no matter how legal, they want to convict him or her without the effort of a trial or the risk of being thwarted. Take the plea bargain for a reduced charge or they will go for the maximum and ruin you financially even if you are acquitted. I'm sure it was a rude shock to the prosecution when Mark O'Mara and Don West stepped up to defend George Zimmerman. All of a sudden, he was no longer a pushover.
Deanimator
Member
I think it goes deeper than that. I see a profound hatred and contempt for "normals". As with the case of Kate Steinle, your sympathies are supposed to lie with the animal who murdered her. Any threat to HIS wellbeing is an abomination.
Regarding Zimmerman, the usual suspects saw his last name and made an assumption which crashed on the rocks of his photograph. But then the anti-gun/anti-self-defense movement has always been based in racism and anti-semitism.
marsofold
Member
[QUOTE="Kendahl, post: All they promise to do is pay for a lawyer to defend you in court and that's only if they believe your actions were legal. [/QUOTE]
This is the reason why I haven't signed on to having "carry insurance". Absent outrageous acts, how do "they" determine if you were a a lawbreaker to decide if you can use the insurance that you paid for? Isn't that the purpose of the trial? Before the trial goes down, 'they" have already decided your guilt or innocence. Sounds like a convenient way to weasel out of the costs of paying for your defense. Am I wrong about this?
This is the reason why I haven't signed on to having "carry insurance". Absent outrageous acts, how do "they" determine if you were a a lawbreaker to decide if you can use the insurance that you paid for? Isn't that the purpose of the trial? Before the trial goes down, 'they" have already decided your guilt or innocence. Sounds like a convenient way to weasel out of the costs of paying for your defense. Am I wrong about this?
With any insurance, you are dependent on the integrity of the insurer to pay legitimate claims. When it came time to buy health insurance to supplement Medicare, I went with a company recommended by someone whose judgement I trust. They pay my bills rather than look for excuses to weasel out of them. Two examples of the latter:
- The victim of a store robbery was shot by a relative of the robber in retaliation for identifying him to police. During his recuperation, the victim became addicted to pain killers. His health insurer refused to pay for drug rehabilitation on the grounds that he was already a recreational drug user.
- We board a couple of horses at a local stable. The roof was damaged by hail and the insurer objected to paying for repairs. Two years later I saw their lawyers and a contractor up on the roof looking for reasons not to pay.
Some of the self defense insurers will not pay up front. You must wait until you are exonerated before filing a claim for reimbursement. To a degree, that makes sense. Winning in court validates your insurance claim. The problem is that you have to raise the cash for your legal defense. For most people, that's between difficult and impossible. To make things worse, a poorly funded defense is much more likely to fail. (That, and their limitation to defense with firearms only, caused me to reject NRA's Carry Guard.)
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
