TexasCHLforum.com

 "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.

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.

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

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.

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 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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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

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.