California stops sale of NRA liability insurance

As the name indicates, this is the place for gun-related political discussions. It is not open to other political topics.

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

Post Reply
User avatar

Topic author
KLB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 508
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2016 10:57 am
Location: San Antonio

California stops sale of NRA liability insurance

#1

Post by KLB » Wed Sep 12, 2018 8:48 pm

 "California has ordered the National Rifle Association to stop selling an insurance policy that covers legal costs for injury or damage from legally using a gun.

"The state Department of Insurance on Tuesday issued a cease and desist order saying that the NRA sold an unlicensed insurance product in the state.

"The order refers to the Self-Defense Insurance Policy included in the NRA's Carry Guard membership program. The policy covers some legal costs from criminal cases or lawsuits that arise when a gun is used for self-defense, recreation, hunting, or when a weapon fires accidentally."

https://www.wkyt.com/content/news/Calif ... 06431.html

Good grief.


WildRose
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 236
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:30 am

Re: California stops sale of NRA liability insurance

#2

Post by WildRose » Wed Sep 12, 2018 11:43 pm

Two years ago one of the big pushes by the anti's was to force every gun owner to carry liability insurance.

Now they are trying to make it unlawful to do so.

I wish I could say this didn't make sense but it's what they do.
NRA Certified Instructor, RSO, CRSO,
Personal/Family Protection and Self Defense Instructor.
Without The First and Second Amendments the rest are meaningless.

User avatar

RPBrown
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 4284
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 11:56 am
Location: Irving, Texas

Re: California stops sale of NRA liability insurance

#3

Post by RPBrown » Thu Sep 13, 2018 8:48 am

WildRose wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 11:43 pm
Two years ago one of the big pushes by the anti's was to force every gun owner to carry liability insurance.

Now they are trying to make it unlawful to do so.

I wish I could say this didn't make sense but it's what they do.
Makes perfect sense to me. They make a law that you have to have insurance to own a gun then don't allow the insurance to be sold in their state hence not allowing you to own the gun. Typical Dumbocrat thinking
NRA-Benefactor Life member
TSRA-Life member
Image

User avatar

Middle Age Russ
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1246
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 11:44 am
Location: Spring-Woodlands

Re: California stops sale of NRA liability insurance

#4

Post by Middle Age Russ » Thu Sep 13, 2018 10:25 am

This is just California following New York's lead. Clearly the NRA insurance product they are banning is insurance to benefit the gun owner. In contrast, what they want is insurance to benefit the recipients of potentially launched projectiles, whether it benefits the gun owner or not.

They have argued that there should be liability insurance for all gun owners, which on the surface would seem not terribly different than liability for car owners. The key difference lies in the nature of the tool owned. Motorized conveyances simplify getting from one place to another -- a convenience. Firearms are potentially used for personal defense, which is a basic human right.
Russ
Stay aware and engaged. Awareness buys time; time buys options. Survival may require moving quickly past the Observe, Orient and Decide steps to ACT.
NRA Life Member, CRSO, Basic Pistol, PPITH & PPOTH Instructor, Texas 4-H Certified Pistol & Rifle Coach, Texas LTC Instructor


Rob72
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 133
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2018 10:08 am
Location: Gulf Coast

Re: California stops sale of NRA liability insurance

#5

Post by Rob72 » Thu Sep 13, 2018 10:40 am

It could possibly be challenged under the Commerce Clause, and/or possibly under the 14th Amendment, citing unfair/unreasonable burden resulting in loss of freedom or property in the absence of the insurance. But, who am I...


WildRose
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 236
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:30 am

Re: California stops sale of NRA liability insurance

#6

Post by WildRose » Thu Sep 13, 2018 11:27 am

Rob72 wrote:
Thu Sep 13, 2018 10:40 am
It could possibly be challenged under the Commerce Clause, and/or possibly under the 14th Amendment, citing unfair/unreasonable burden resulting in loss of freedom or property in the absence of the insurance. But, who am I...
I think there's probably a strong commerce clause argument to go along with equal protection.

The argument seems to be that should the gun intentionally be used to commit a crime, the insurance still can be used.

Insurance is not denied however if someone has a DWI accident and kills someone or uses a car intentionally to run someone down.

There is no logical connection here.
NRA Certified Instructor, RSO, CRSO,
Personal/Family Protection and Self Defense Instructor.
Without The First and Second Amendments the rest are meaningless.


rotor
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 2915
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 11:26 pm

Re: California stops sale of NRA liability insurance

#7

Post by rotor » Thu Sep 13, 2018 12:18 pm

NRA contracted with broker Lockton to handle insurance and NRA is now suing Lockton. It is hard to say whether Lockton did not follow each states insurance laws or not. This may all be an orchestrated anti-2a and anti-NRA movement but also may be the fault of a poor brokerage decision too. I guess time will tell.


WildRose
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 236
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:30 am

Re: California stops sale of NRA liability insurance

#8

Post by WildRose » Fri Sep 14, 2018 2:20 am

rotor wrote:
Thu Sep 13, 2018 12:18 pm
NRA contracted with broker Lockton to handle insurance and NRA is now suing Lockton. It is hard to say whether Lockton did not follow each states insurance laws or not. This may all be an orchestrated anti-2a and anti-NRA movement but also may be the fault of a poor brokerage decision too. I guess time will tell.
It appears that they didn't but we'll have to see how the courts decide.

It was their responsibility to ensure the policies met the regulations for each state in which they were sold.
NRA Certified Instructor, RSO, CRSO,
Personal/Family Protection and Self Defense Instructor.
Without The First and Second Amendments the rest are meaningless.


flechero
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 2052
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:04 pm
Location: Central Texas

Re: California stops sale of NRA liability insurance

#9

Post by flechero » Fri Sep 14, 2018 10:10 am

rotor wrote:
Thu Sep 13, 2018 12:18 pm
NRA contracted with broker Lockton to handle insurance and NRA is now suing Lockton. It is hard to say whether Lockton did not follow each states insurance laws or not. This may all be an orchestrated anti-2a and anti-NRA movement but also may be the fault of a poor brokerage decision too. I guess time will tell.
If the NRA is suing Lockton, it would seem that there was a misstep on thier part.... otherwise why would the NRA sue any company helping/partnering with them? (so it seems the NRA will need to find another broker now)

User avatar

Topic author
KLB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 508
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2016 10:57 am
Location: San Antonio

Re: California stops sale of NRA liability insurance

#10

Post by KLB » Fri Sep 14, 2018 10:29 am

WildRose wrote:
Thu Sep 13, 2018 11:27 am
Rob72 wrote:
Thu Sep 13, 2018 10:40 am
It could possibly be challenged under the Commerce Clause, and/or possibly under the 14th Amendment, citing unfair/unreasonable burden resulting in loss of freedom or property in the absence of the insurance. But, who am I...
I think there's probably a strong commerce clause argument to go along with equal protection.
Insurance is regulated on a state-by-state basis, so a commerce-clause argument is unlikely to work. I used to know the historical basis for how insurance is regulated, but it escapes me now.


WildRose
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 236
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:30 am

Re: California stops sale of NRA liability insurance

#11

Post by WildRose » Sun Sep 16, 2018 1:20 am

KLB wrote:
Fri Sep 14, 2018 10:29 am
WildRose wrote:
Thu Sep 13, 2018 11:27 am
Rob72 wrote:
Thu Sep 13, 2018 10:40 am
It could possibly be challenged under the Commerce Clause, and/or possibly under the 14th Amendment, citing unfair/unreasonable burden resulting in loss of freedom or property in the absence of the insurance. But, who am I...
I think there's probably a strong commerce clause argument to go along with equal protection.
Insurance is regulated on a state-by-state basis, so a commerce-clause argument is unlikely to work. I used to know the historical basis for how insurance is regulated, but it escapes me now.
True, but the company is national doing business in CA. States regulate all business operating within their borders, but "commerce between the states" is specifically what is protected so I think they have a good case using it.
NRA Certified Instructor, RSO, CRSO,
Personal/Family Protection and Self Defense Instructor.
Without The First and Second Amendments the rest are meaningless.

User avatar

Topic author
KLB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 508
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2016 10:57 am
Location: San Antonio

Re: California stops sale of NRA liability insurance

#12

Post by KLB » Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:26 am

WildRose wrote:
Sun Sep 16, 2018 1:20 am
True, but the company is national doing business in CA. States regulate all business operating within their borders, but "commerce between the states" is specifically what is protected so I think they have a good case using it.
Any commerce-clause challenge will have to deal with the federal McCarren-Fergusen Act, which exempts most state insurance regulation from commerce-clause challenges.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran–Ferguson_Act


WildRose
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 236
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:30 am

Re: California stops sale of NRA liability insurance

#13

Post by WildRose » Tue Sep 18, 2018 1:33 pm

KLB wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:26 am
WildRose wrote:
Sun Sep 16, 2018 1:20 am
True, but the company is national doing business in CA. States regulate all business operating within their borders, but "commerce between the states" is specifically what is protected so I think they have a good case using it.
Any commerce-clause challenge will have to deal with the federal McCarren-Fergusen Act, which exempts most state insurance regulation from commerce-clause challenges.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran–Ferguson_Act
Yep which in my opinion should not exist, I believe it's unconstitutional with a plain reading of the clause and should be struck down.

One case before a conservative leaning court is all we need and we're about to have that.
NRA Certified Instructor, RSO, CRSO,
Personal/Family Protection and Self Defense Instructor.
Without The First and Second Amendments the rest are meaningless.

Post Reply

Return to “Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues”