TexasCHLforum.com

Mr. Cotton, Can you shed some light on this. Kinda seems like we are eating our own.



The National Rifle Association Disinvites US Concealed Carry Association from Annual Meeting and Exhibits

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/potent ... -exhibits/

Thanks

NRA's self defense insurance cost more than USCCA's? Pressure from NRA "Partners" who are adversely affected by USCCA?

NRA wants to be the only game in town. Only reason I keep my NRA pistol instructor qualification is because I have to have it in order to keep my LTC instructor certification. If there was another way for me to qualify, I would gladly do it. I don't like monopolies.

Hopefully LA Pierre is on the way out. I do not see where the NRA has done anything but run under the good ole boy system since he has been in. I support the NRA with hopes it will get back to business of supporting gun rights and not revenue.

Charles probably can not comment on this one for a number of reasons. I would also like to point out that the NRA and USCCA neither one sell 'self-defense insurance' because you can not legally insure an illegal act. The use of deadly force is an illegal act that is legally justified (Charles does a better job of explaining this in at least one post here on TexasCHLforum.com).

To the matter at hand I suspect there is more than money involved in this issue. It could be anything from a guest that USCCA is planning to bring, to the design of their booth, to a disagreement on rules that the NRA expects attending organisations to follow. USCCA says it is because of “concerns regarding its programs.” This could mean that there is an issue with training that USCCA provides, or it could be an issue with calling one of their programs an insurance program when it legally can not be one, or it could be some pending legal action USCCA has found itself in and the NRA wants to distance itself, or it could be a number of other things. NRA public relations would be the correct source to ask for the NRA's side of the story.

Keep in mind that the NRA most likely stated the exact concern to USCCA and neither has felt a need to make that concern public is also telling us that something more is likely in play than a price war.

G.A. Heath wrote:Charles probably can not comment on this one for a number of reasons. I would also like to point out that the NRA and USCCA neither one sell 'self-defense insurance' because you can not legally insure an illegal act. The use of deadly force is an illegal act that is legally justified (Charles does a better job of explaining this in at least one post here on TexasCHLforum.com).

To the matter at hand I suspect there is more than money involved in this issue. It could be anything from a guest that USCCA is planning to bring, to the design of their booth, to a disagreement on rules that the NRA expects attending organisations to follow. USCCA says it is because of “concerns regarding its programs.” This could mean that there is an issue with training that USCCA provides, or it could be an issue with calling one of their programs an insurance program when it legally can not be one, or it could be some pending legal action USCCA has found itself in and the NRA wants to distance itself, or it could be a number of other things. NRA public relations would be the correct source to ask for the NRA's side of the story.

Keep in mind that the NRA most likely stated the exact concern to USCCA and neither has felt a need to make that concern public is also telling us that something more is likely in play than a price war.

But you can sell a pre-paid legal service that will defend you in the event that you are CHARGED WITH an illegal act. Which is what the so called insurance is...not insurance which it (theoretically) legally can't be. I believe there's also a class action pending against one of these pre-paid legal services in Texas. I heard Forum members could possibly be members of the class, and therefore Mr. Cotton may not wish to comment due to some legal rules. I should be clear that I'm speculating and have no definitive understanding of this, so my opinions are just that.

I had bad experience with said Association. It is for Profit Business and and does not welcome someone like myself with his background. Enough said.

It is just disappointing to me. If the NRA has a similar product then compete for the business. The NRA members can make an informed decision . If the NRA cant compete then they probably shouldn't be in that market. We Finally have a chance to really move the football forward and we are doing supid stuff like this. The NRA and it's ILA whom I support should be working on getting rid of the Gun Control acts of 1968 and 1934 not restricting access to their exhibit hall. I assumed since Mr Cotten Was a Board member whom I voted for he may have some insight on this.

I don't think the NRA actually sells insurance on anything. I believe they contract with companies that they "endorse" and they then receive a commission. I think this is a fairly common practice in business. AARP does the same thing I am sure. I don't know why the NRA is not working with USCCA.

xring wrote:It is just disappointing to me. If the NRA has a similar product then compete for the business. The NRA members can make an informed decision . If the NRA cant compete then they probably shouldn't be in that market. We Finally have a chance to really move the football forward and we are doing supid stuff like this. The NRA and it's ILA whom I support should be working on getting rid of the Gun Control acts of 1968 and 1934 not restricting access to their exhibit hall. I assumed since Mr Cotten Was a Board member whom I voted for he may have some insight on this.

I can't speak to any of this. Didn't know until this post. But wouldn't it be like McDonalds inviting Burger King into their restaurants to advertise to their customers to take away their business? This is an NRA event. If USCCA is indeed offering competitive services they should have the integrity not to do it at an NRA event.

xring wrote:It is just disappointing to me. If the NRA has a similar product then compete for the business. The NRA members can make an informed decision . If the NRA cant compete then they probably shouldn't be in that market. We Finally have a chance to really move the football forward and we are doing supid stuff like this. The NRA and it's ILA whom I support should be working on getting rid of the Gun Control acts of 1968 and 1934 not restricting access to their exhibit hall. I assumed since Mr Cotten Was a Board member whom I voted for he may have some insight on this.

While Charles may have some insight on this, please keep in mind three things. First this decision was made by people who handle day to day operations and the individual board of director members might not be privy to the details until they meet officially and are briefed on them. Second is that even if he is privy to the details he is likely limited in what he can share due to confidentiality provisions he and/or the NRA agreed too. Finally as he has pointed out a number of times: as a member of the board of directors he can not speak for the NRA except at a meeting of the board. Charles is a great guy and he will do the right thing, but he will also make sure that he meets his obligations as a member of the NRA board of directors.

I know nothing about this, therefore I don't know 1) if it's true; and 2) if so, what was the reasoning behind the decision. I can say that the so-called "self-defense" insurance sold through Lockton is a tiny portion of the NRA's revenue, so money is not an issue. I found the USCCA statement to be quite self-serving.
Chas.

yeah Charles i found that true also... he self-serving part. hmm maybe rethink some stuff here.