Oh, please. It is so easy to obtain an insurance license in California. It takes about 20 hours of “study”. Have you seen the people applying? Not exactly Phi Beta Kappa membership required.
And this entire fracas could have been avoided if the CDI had simply asked the NRA to obtain a licence. But we all know why that didn’t happen: the NRA is the whipping boy of the Left, a distraction from the mass killings in society that the NRA has absolutely nothing to do with.
And Mr. Robinson contributes to this charade with his mumbo jumbo about insurance licenses. (Check out the AARP website, pushing all sorts of insurance products. Do you really think the fact they have a license makes it any different from the NRA? Of course not.)
That is exactly what I said. The Dept. of Insurance should have said the same, Dude. Instead, it became a political issue promoted by the media, and ONLY because the entity involved was the NRA. Have some common sense.
If this was the Apartment Association of America, the Dept. of Insurance would have done exactly that, ask them to get a license, instead of calling the media. Wise up, Dude.
The flip side of the supposed partisan attack is the fact that SOMEONE, ANYONE at the NRA should have taken the time to confirm EVERYTHING so that there would be absolutely no doubt in the legitimacy of their product offering. Seriously, this is a failure on a simply administrative checklist to confirm. 1) you are dealing with CA; 2) you are the NRA and everything you do is under the microscope. Doesn’t take a Phi Beta Kappa to figure that one out.
I agree with Caldude. Whatever political leanings you may have, it seems like a pretty clear case of a business failing to do their due diligence to ensure their broker/agent was properly licensed to conduct that type of business. If the NRA had written correspondence from the broker and the broker made material misrepresentations about their license status, then I would agree the state went overboard (but the NRA could then easily sue their broker and recover whatever funds may have been lost or recoup their insurance fine).
I was focusing on the NRA’s past explanation of “…its insurance program is administered by insurance brokers and it relied on them to follow state regulations.” So while I now understand the agent/broker was licensed, and the NRA expected the broker to tell the NRA they had to get licensed too, my comment about the NRA not doing their due diligence is moot.
In summary — I messed up understanding the particulars of this case and apologize for making said mistake.
However, I still agree with Caldude that the NRA should’ve just gotten a license to sell insurance since, as Craig stated, “It is so easy to obtain [one]”
To reiterate – I messed up in first reply. Please excuse my error. I made a mistake. No need to jump all over me for messing up since I’ve clearly identified the error of my post and have admitted the same in no uncertain terms.
Nicely done. Your error was such that you should agree with me instead for the very reason I pointed out! But you STILL don’t, for some bizarre reason. Oh wait, I know what it is: partisan hack.
May 10, 2019 at 7:10 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17
1
Nothing to do with politics here buddy. If a company wants to sell insurance somewhere, they must comply with the laws in that state.
“The Hobgoblin of a feeble mind.” But OF COURSE they have to have a licence. That was never the question. The question – as YOU pointed out – was why no one told them they needed one. Not the broker. Not the California Department of Communism.
Instead, and I know you aren’t honest and this is a waste of time, the CDI publicized a minor technicality instead of just getting it be corrected solely because the NRA is the Boogey Man of the Left.
Is the article about how both the broker AND the CDI failed to exercise common sense? Nope. More demonizing the bad, bad NRA.
And you know this wouldn’t happen if the subject of the critical missing insurance license were someone like MSNBC or Planned Parenthood or a million other liberal buddies.
But like I said, I learned a long time about you.
May 13, 2019 at 1:19 pm
SacFlood says:
Like or Dislike:
10
3
Lockton bills itself as the world’s largest privately held Insurance Brokerage. It won’t hold that title for long if, it keeps being the broker for Carry Guard. Once people realize this, they will suffer market share, due to their attitude of going against the grain, instead of conducting themselves in a socially moral and ethical manner.
I’m sure people who need insurance will decide on a carrier based on moral and ethical behavior, rather than price. Oh, wait! Never mind.
Once people realize which US political party ACTUALLY was colluding with foreign governments and operatives for agendas that are in direct contradiction with the interests and freedoms of US citizens, that party will suffer ‘market share’ due to their recent decades of contrarian behavior.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Dude, just get the license and follow established insurance law. Not that hard.
That is exactly what I said. The Dept. of Insurance should have said the same, Dude. Instead, it became a political issue promoted by the media, and ONLY because the entity involved was the NRA. Have some common sense.
If this was the Apartment Association of America, the Dept. of Insurance would have done exactly that, ask them to get a license, instead of calling the media. Wise up, Dude.
The flip side of the supposed partisan attack is the fact that SOMEONE, ANYONE at the NRA should have taken the time to confirm EVERYTHING so that there would be absolutely no doubt in the legitimacy of their product offering. Seriously, this is a failure on a simply administrative checklist to confirm. 1) you are dealing with CA; 2) you are the NRA and everything you do is under the microscope. Doesn’t take a Phi Beta Kappa to figure that one out.
I agree with Caldude. Whatever political leanings you may have, it seems like a pretty clear case of a business failing to do their due diligence to ensure their broker/agent was properly licensed to conduct that type of business. If the NRA had written correspondence from the broker and the broker made material misrepresentations about their license status, then I would agree the state went overboard (but the NRA could then easily sue their broker and recover whatever funds may have been lost or recoup their insurance fine).
I apologize for my error above.
I was focusing on the NRA’s past explanation of “…its insurance program is administered by insurance brokers and it relied on them to follow state regulations.” So while I now understand the agent/broker was licensed, and the NRA expected the broker to tell the NRA they had to get licensed too, my comment about the NRA not doing their due diligence is moot.
In summary — I messed up understanding the particulars of this case and apologize for making said mistake.
However, I still agree with Caldude that the NRA should’ve just gotten a license to sell insurance since, as Craig stated, “It is so easy to obtain [one]”
To reiterate – I messed up in first reply. Please excuse my error. I made a mistake. No need to jump all over me for messing up since I’ve clearly identified the error of my post and have admitted the same in no uncertain terms.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Nothing to do with politics here buddy. If a company wants to sell insurance somewhere, they must comply with the laws in that state.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Lockton bills itself as the world’s largest privately held Insurance Brokerage. It won’t hold that title for long if, it keeps being the broker for Carry Guard. Once people realize this, they will suffer market share, due to their attitude of going against the grain, instead of conducting themselves in a socially moral and ethical manner.
I’m sure people who need insurance will decide on a carrier based on moral and ethical behavior, rather than price. Oh, wait! Never mind.
Once people realize which US political party ACTUALLY was colluding with foreign governments and operatives for agendas that are in direct contradiction with the interests and freedoms of US citizens, that party will suffer ‘market share’ due to their recent decades of contrarian behavior.