NRA Sues New York, Alleging First Amendment Violations in Insurance Crackdown

May 11, 2018

  • May 11, 2018 at 3:31 pm
    Agent says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 41
    Thumb down 16

    Enough is enough. Cuomo, we are coming for you. Line those attorney’s up and then raise taxes to pay for them.

    • May 14, 2018 at 10:10 am
      Retired UW says:
      Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 4
      Thumb down 17

      Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

      • May 14, 2018 at 5:07 pm
        Captain Planet says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 9

        Retired UW says:

        You ain’t seen nothing, yet. After DEMs take back control of Congress in November, the NRA and other domestic terrorist organizations are going to get some intense focus.

        APRIL 3, 2018 AT 1:59 PM
        Tax Cuts 4 PolaRich Bears says:
        LIKE OR DISLIKE:
        3
        2
        You’ve failed to censor me and others with whom you disagree, including use of BOTS – which were subsequently blocked by IJ.

  • May 11, 2018 at 3:45 pm
    Dave says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 57
    Thumb down 13

    Glad to see this happening. When The State can come after a private enterprise like this, there needs to be push-back. NY is attempting to quash interstate commerce without any authority to do so. Good for the NRA for taking on this obvious overreach.

  • May 11, 2018 at 3:56 pm
    Jack says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 36
    Thumb down 7

    Bout damn time.

  • May 11, 2018 at 4:36 pm
    Baxtor says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 22
    Thumb down 7

    The problem with lawsuits like this is the only people that suffer are the tax payers and they are oblivious. When states do things, or the Federal government, there are usually a person or persons behind it. What ends up happening is the tax payer pays millions to file or defend it, while the governor or whomever walks away free from their decision. There needs to be some recourse against the persons illegal activity. Even if its one day or week in jail, something. Maybe first time, one day, the second time, one week, third time one month. These people need to stop using tax payer’s money just to make a political point, even though it’s not constitutional. They have enough lawyers working for them, that they should be able to tell them what they are doing is illegal or not. These states disobeying the constitution and over-riding Federal Law, should have their governors prosecuted as I stated above. If not, these weekly lawsuits will continue and our taxes will continue to go up. This is a great time to be a lawyer in America.

    • May 13, 2018 at 8:40 pm
      SWoods says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 23
      Thumb down 3

      Agreed, would love to see such punishments imposed on all the legislators pushing unconstitutional restrictions on abortion that have been struck down by the courts repeatedly! Passing an obviously unconstitutional law is unacceptable.

      • May 14, 2018 at 7:18 am
        PolarBeaRepeal says:
        Hot debate. What do you think?
        Thumb up 18
        Thumb down 12

        I agree that all legislators and citizens who oppose gun ownership and support abortion rights are consistent in their intent to make people defenseless against criminals with guns owned illegally or abortion doctors with scalpels who violate the oath they took upon graduation(?) from med school.

  • May 11, 2018 at 7:25 pm
    Diane S. Baker BA FRM FIIC says:
    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 11
    Thumb down 22

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    • May 14, 2018 at 7:20 am
      PolarBeaRepeal says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 35
      Thumb down 9

      The NRA isn’t mad. Gun control freaks are mad, and don’t understand or believe in the US Constitution. NO GUN LAW will protect citizens from criminal law breakers who will find a way to own a gun illegally (based on ANY wording of gun control laws).

    • May 17, 2018 at 4:29 am
      BaconLovingInfidel says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 4
      Thumb down 0

      That’s a lie. The Carry Guard insurance contracts very specifically excluded coverage for intentionally criminal acts:

      From Pages 3 & 4 0f the Chubb Carry Guard contract:

      “NRA (SECTION 1s) 05 17

      IV. EXCLUSIONS

      O. any claim arising out of a criminal act as defined by applicable local, state, federal, or provincial laws by an “insured” except this exclusion shall not
      apply to an “act of self-defense”.
      P. any claim caused by an “insured” while under the influence of alcohol, intoxicants, narcotics or any other mind-altering substance, as defined by
      applicable local, state, federal, or provincial laws.”

  • May 14, 2018 at 10:08 am
    Retired UW says:
    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 8
    Thumb down 22

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    • May 14, 2018 at 10:38 am
      mrbob says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 25
      Thumb down 3

      Retired UW
      What exactly is reasonable gun control? Please do not reply banning assault weapons as Armolite 15 and its many variants are no more assault weapons or weapons of war than the M1 carbine or Rugers mini 14. It is only when a mentally deranged individual uses what is nothing more than a tool that the weapon becomes a bad thing. With that said please help me understand what is reasonable gun control, for me by the way it is fully enforcing the hundreds of laws already on the books.

      • May 14, 2018 at 11:19 am
        reasonable actuary says:
        Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 5
        Thumb down 16

        Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

        • May 14, 2018 at 12:25 pm
          Dave says:
          Hot debate. What do you think?
          Thumb up 15
          Thumb down 7

          What do you think your chances are when you door’s kicked-in and 2 or 3 home invaders waltz in. You might get 1 with your “hunting rifle”. You be lucky to get 2 with your 10 rnd magazine handgun. A semi-auto with a 30 rnd mag gives you a decent chance of coming out of this alive.

          Why don’t my family and I deserve that chance?

          • May 14, 2018 at 12:42 pm
            sal says:
            Hot debate. What do you think?
            Thumb up 14
            Thumb down 11

            where do you live that this is a regular occurrence?

          • May 14, 2018 at 12:44 pm
            Ron says:
            Hot debate. What do you think?
            Thumb up 14
            Thumb down 12

            Assuming you are a responsible gun owner and storing your fire arm properly, will you have the time to retrieve your firearm from one safe and ammunition from the other, load your firearm, turn off the safety, aim and fire accurately under duress? Or do you just have your loaded firearm laying around for your children to access?

          • May 14, 2018 at 2:47 pm
            Dave says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 11
            Thumb down 2

            sal…ironton, OH and yes, there are regular instances of this, not that it matters. Even if I live where its never happened, personal protection is EVERYONE’S RIGHT.
            Ron…I don’t have children nor any around my home. Implying that a responsible gun owner cannot have quick access to a loaded weapon is BS. You know not of what you speak.

          • May 14, 2018 at 2:58 pm
            Retired UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 8

            Dave, you should move somewhere safer.

          • May 14, 2018 at 5:11 pm
            Captain Planet says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 6

            Just use your car or knife, right? Conservatives keep “whatabouting” those talking points. Supposedly, cars and knives are just as effective in killing people so you could just grab your car keys or open up your dishwasher when they come waltzing in.

          • May 17, 2018 at 4:22 am
            BaconLovingInfidel says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 2

            “Assuming you are a responsible gun owner and storing your fire arm properly, will you have the time to retrieve your firearm from one safe and ammunition from the other, load your firearm, turn off the safety, aim and fire accurately under duress? Or do you just have your loaded firearm laying around for your children to access?”

            An idiotically ignorant question. The implication that a defensive weapon needs to be unloaded and locked in a safe for it’s owner to be responsible is moronic. A defensive firearm can be extremely secure while still accessible for defense. There’s nothing irresponsible about keeping defensive firearms loaded. It’s childishly ignorant to suggest otherwise.

            Firearms are used prolifically for self defense and defense of family, friends, and home in the US. It’s childishly ignorant to suggest otherwise.

          • May 17, 2018 at 1:14 pm
            Captain Planet says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 2

            Good point, Bacon.
            I keep a loaded harpoon by my front door in the highly likely event I get invaded by the land shark.

            https://www.imdb.com/videoplayer/vi3999373593

      • May 14, 2018 at 8:54 pm
        George says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 6
        Thumb down 6

        Some of you ask for proof that gun safety laws are effective. Where is the proof that they are not? I and millions of people honestly believe gun control laws do prevent and have prevented mass shootings. All these claims that controls over guns do not save lives are unproven and run counter to common sense. We put up stop signs, designate pedestrian walkways and enforce drunk driving and speeding laws because they help prevent accidents and save lives. There are still accidents but nobody argues we should stop these prevention efforts. We have a patchwork system of gun laws with some states having weak laws and others having stronger laws, and a weak federal system. Look at experience and research rather than anecdotal events and headlines. States with the strongest gun control laws have the lowest gun death rates. A mass shooting or continued violence in a place like Chicago do not prove that gun control doesn’t work. How do you know gun laws do not save lives? You only know of those instances where the laws did not exist or were not properly enforced—you have no idea of the number of shootings and accidents that have been prevented because laws and procedures are in place.
        Also you might be interested to know that states or cities with strong gun laws do not necessarily deny more applicants for gun licenses than other states; they seem to do a better job of keeping guns out of the hands of those people who may pose a danger. Massachusetts has among the strongest gun laws in the country and the lowest gun death rate. Under its laws, about 3 percent of applicants for gun permits are denied; that is about the same as the national average of denied applications. Law abiding citizens are not being denied their guns and that is not the aim of gun safety laws.
        Every right comes with responsibilities and limits. That’s how we operate as a society. Courts and even Justice Scalia recognized that there can be legitimate restrictions on the Second Amendment. Even our cherished right to free speech does not give us the right to say whatever we want whenever and wherever we want. There are restrictions on speech that encourages lawless action, that is obscene, and that defames. There are numerous exceptions to the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Police are given leeway to invade a person’s privacy if they have reason to think an imminently dangerous situation exists.
        Any restriction should face strict scrutiny but that does not mean there should be no restrictions. Shouting that liberals or government or students are out to take away your Second Amendment rights whenever a safety measure is proposed is propaganda that drowns out honest discussion and scrutiny. To reply to every gun control proposal as an attempt to take away guns from law-abiding citizens is pure hysteria.
        Are gun safety laws perfect? No law or preventive measure is. Nobody expects gun control laws to completely end mass shootings or gun deaths. But if we do nothing we can be sure violence will continue. Call it loss prevention or mitigation or risk management or preventive care– —it works in healthcare, in crime, in workplace injuries and it works in insurance.
        By the way, polls show most Americans—including NRA members—support stronger gun control laws. Our kids and other innocent citizens are being killed. Take a chance for a safer country and support gun control for their sake. And….
        And finally… If you are curious about Mass. gun safety laws: Certain firearms are illegal for private ownership in Massachusetts. Machine guns and sawed-off shotguns are illegal. Firearms that have had the serial number removed are illegal, as well as silencers.
        Mass. citizens need a license to carry a firearm. To get a license they are subject to background checks and must complete a four-hour gun safety course. They are fingerprinted and interviewed by local police. Some people who may not own a firearm in Massachusetts– they include: convicted felons; convicted drug dealers; aliens; those convicted of habitual drunkenness; those under 18 years of age (but 15-18 is allowed with parental permission); and anyone who has been confined to a mental hospital or institution for mental illness.

        • May 16, 2018 at 1:28 pm
          Dave says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 0

          To be clear, I know of no State where its legal to possess a sawed-off shotgun or a machine gun (except under severe restriction). Convicted felons, those dx with mental illness and pot smokers cannot pass the Federal Background Check, hence cannot purchase a firearm.

          NRA members support background checks (that are already in place), not necessarily “stronger gun control laws”. Your statement on this point is misleading at best.

          Overall, your demand that the negative be proved is foolish. If you want a law, show that it will have the desired effect and then we’ll think about it.

          • May 16, 2018 at 4:27 pm
            Ummm ok says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 0

            Dave,

            He never said it was legal, he clearly said Illegal:
            Certain firearms are illegal for private ownership in Massachusetts. Machine guns and sawed-off shotguns are illegal.

            he even said ILLEGAL twice in his sentence.

            And pot smokers cannot pass the federal background check….ummm ok! Do you think they are drug screening??!! I have yet to be asked to provide a urine, hair or mouth swab when purchasing a gun. Some people on this site are truly clueless and spew nonsense. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. I admit, it is extremely entertaining!!

          • May 17, 2018 at 10:46 am
            Dave says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            Well, Ummmm, George’s implication was something like “if only the rest of the USA had MA’s gun laws, we’d be moving in the right direction.” Its an old Straw-Man used by folks who can’t offer a cogent argument.
            Fact is, (as I noted) most of the restrictions he cites are already in place in the rest of the country. MA’s licensure process stops no crime. Straw-Man

        • May 16, 2018 at 2:25 pm
          mrbob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 0

          George,
          I live in AZ which has been voted for the last couple of years as being the most gun friendly state in the union. Yet I cannot recall one mass shooting here, and I pray to God that one never happens. All gun laws do is impact honest people who are not a threat to anyone.
          Again based upon my experience I would ask that someone show me how MA list of gun safety laws would solve today’s issues? The list provided are all controlled via the NFA so why does MA go one step further and make NFA firearms illegal for private ownership in Massachusetts? Machine guns and sawed-off shotguns are illegal as well as silencers. Can anyone point to a crime in the last 40 years that impacted large amounts of people where the criminal used one of these? Oh and by the way I can saw off a shot gun to 18 and 1/2 inches and it is still a legal weapon.
          I keep saying it but the problem is not the gun it is the criminal behind the gun and a government that does not take proactive steps when informed of individuals who present a danger to themselves and others. It is easy to armchair quarterback but that is exactly what happened in the case of Parkland and the church shooter in Texas, the same government that you want to take away more rights from honest law abiding citizens did not do their job.

          One more point and I will get off of my soapbox why does the government not go after every person who fails a instant background check that is due to a legitimate cause? It is a crime for a convicted felon to even attempt to purchase a weapon but very rarely does the federal government go after these people.

    • May 14, 2018 at 1:00 pm
      Agent says:
      Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 4
      Thumb down 15

      Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

      • May 14, 2018 at 3:41 pm
        confused says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 7
        Thumb down 5

        can you explain why you think this comment added something useful to the discussion?

  • May 14, 2018 at 10:48 am
    mrbob says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 13
    Thumb down 0

    From my limited knowledge of the Carry Guard program it would only reimburse the individual member for cost of defense if they were found not guilty or the charges were dropped, can someone please explain why this would be a bad thing in the Peoples Republic of New York? As to Lockton paying the NRA for the affinity program there may be an issue under NY law but question how all of the other affinity programs function throughout the country?

    I would agree with the NRA’s stand relative to regulatory entities bad mouthing to the entire financial industry that a relationship with the NRA could be a problem if true certainly seems to me to overstep the authority of the department.

  • May 14, 2018 at 1:48 pm
    Unbelievable says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 24
    Thumb down 1

    This is the United States of America. Land of the FREE and home of the brave.

    Stop fighting each other over this and use that energy to think of a viable solution instead of hating each other for your beliefs. Remember: Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

  • May 14, 2018 at 4:07 pm
    Interested says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 9
    Thumb down 1

    When seconds count, it only takes police minutes to get there. And the police are not obligated to put their life before yours – which is why you need the right to protect yourself with whatever you choose in a free country.
    Countries with no guns still have shootings and then also, people find other ways to kill eachother with knives and other means. People kill people, not guns. Do knives kill people? No people kill people.

    The time has come where home invasions do seem to be more prevalent. Having protection seems to make good sense in the one country where it is legal. You don’t know what you’re up against. The criminal has the element of surprise so a super gun in a responsible household makes sense.

    The reason we have it in the constitution is to protect us from the government. When the government has more and stronger weapons than the people it serves, the people will suffer. History shows us that he citizens need the weapons otherwise, how will we keep the .01% in check. It has happened in the past, in many countries where governments have disarmed their own people, singled them out, and punished them.
    I’m all for responsible gun ownership and an insurance policy that might have protected me in the slight and remote chance I might have to protect myself.
    God Bless America where I have that right.

  • May 15, 2018 at 9:03 am
    sal says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 6

    for those of you who say that no NRA member has ever been responsible for any mass killings: Timothy McVeigh doesn’t count?

    • May 15, 2018 at 3:17 pm
      Craig Cornell says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 4
      Thumb down 0

      Timothy McVeigh didn’t use a gun to kill people. I guess you are trying to support the NRA . . .

      • May 15, 2018 at 3:37 pm
        confused says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 4
        Thumb down 0

        he had a concealed weapon and didn’t have a conceal carry permit when he was arrested

        • May 15, 2018 at 4:04 pm
          Craig Cornell says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 3
          Thumb down 2

          So what? What does that have to do with the NRA? Or the dead in Oklahoma City?

          Ban Fertilizer! Stop the green lobby! Boycott Miracle Grow!

          • May 17, 2018 at 1:18 pm
            Captain Planet says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 3

            In other words, Craig is saying, “What about? What about? What about?” It’s his go-to.

    • May 17, 2018 at 4:18 am
      BaconLovingInfidel says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 0

      McVeigh wasn’t an NRA member. He quit the NRA, viewing its stance on gun rights as too weak.

  • May 17, 2018 at 1:38 pm
    FFA says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 0

    Off topic, is the school shooting in IL hitting the news your neck of the woods?

    • May 17, 2018 at 1:53 pm
      Captain Planet says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 0

      Yes, it is. From what I understand, it was a single target and not intended to be a mass shooting. But, the target was able to fire back and hit the shooter, chasing him away. Shooter was from Dixon, right? I spent time living in Bettendorf, which is basically Davenport. The best BBQ ribs are across the river in Rock Island. And now, I’m craving Jim’s.

      • May 17, 2018 at 3:20 pm
        FFA says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 0

        Its my understanding that the gun man came into a hallway firing and the School Resource Office got to the shooter before the shooter could get to anyone.
        Second time this has happened since Parkland Shooting. Building a strong case for Armed Security in schools. Two different School shooters taken out before they could do the damage they intended on doing so. Little to no press coverage on these two. But mass casualties…. Grab all the head lines.

        • May 17, 2018 at 3:29 pm
          Captain Planet says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 1

          FFA,
          In both of these cases, there was only a single target. There was never any intention to be a mass shooting. The shooter was going after the resource officer in IL. That was his target – the 2 had history. Dixon kid fired at the resource officer and resource officer fired back. Dixon kid knew where he worked, was easier to track him down there. In the other case, the shooter did his damage, he shot who he wanted to and the bullet also caught someone he didn’t intend to.

          I personally don’t want my daughters in a school with guns. I’m not against people owning them. There are tight controls to gain entry to our schools in my community. No sense in adding guns to the mix. Just my opinion.

        • May 17, 2018 at 3:30 pm
          Rosenblatt says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 0

          I don’t have a problem putting armed security in schools – you lose me when the talk shifts to arming teachers. (To clarify: I’m using the indefinite pronoun of you – I’m not specifically referencing FAA, Captain, or any one individual).

          • May 18, 2018 at 11:13 am
            FFA says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 0

            I don’t believe arming teachers is the way to go either. First objection is a target is put on all teachers weather they have a gun or not. Second point, there is already enough on their shoulders. They don’t get paid enough to have that on their shoulders too.
            Lack of media attention on the IL shooting and the other one makes it hard to believe / not believe what Cap is saying. Had the Parkland Officer taken out the offender, what would be said in the media about that one? Oh, its was just one target?
            Now, another shooting in TX???
            Something has gone wrong, really wrong in my life time. Used to settle disputes with rivals on the ball field or on the play ground with out weapons.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*