Washington Shuts Down NRA Carry Guard Insurance Program in the State

nra carry guard insurance washington

courtesy nrastore.com

Washington State is pushing hard to claim the title of the most anti-gun state in the nation. California, New York and Massachusetts provide some stiff competition for the crown, but the Evergreen State is coming up fast on the outside.

Their latest move to make life difficult for the state’s gun owners is to declare that the National Rifle Association’s Carry Guard insurance product violates state insurance laws and shut it down.

From the Spokesman-Review:

Dubbed “murder insurance” by some gun control advocacy groups nationally, the policies became available in April 2017 through a website jointly run by the gun rights organization and insurance underwriting firms based in Kansas and Pennsylvania. Washington State Insurance Commissioner Mike Kriedler said in a news release Tuesday he would seek $177,000 in fines from the two companies and declared the plans in violation of state law.

“The policies sold are deceptive and dishonest,” Kriedler said in a statement announcing his decision. “I would be remiss as the state’s insurance regulator if I didn’t shut them down.”

In stopping the NRA from selling Carry Guard insurance, Washington follows the example of New York, which terminated Carry Guard in the state following the Parkland shooting. Governor Soprano and the state insurance commissioner also pressured the program’s underwriters to drop the NRA, prompting the gun rights org to sue the don governor and the state.

The (Washington) plans are in violation of state law because they could cover upfront expenses for mounting a criminal defense, even if the policyholder later pleads guilty to charges or is convicted, the Insurance Commissioner Office said in its news release announcing its decision.

The agency reported 811 policies have been sold in Washington state, with $260,000 collected in premiums over the past two years; 255 of the policies later were canceled. The companies have received no claims since the program’s inception in April 2017.

Regarding the Washington move…

“As today’s announcement acknowledges, changes were made to the NRA’s website last year to address concerns raised by the commissioner’s office,” William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors and counsel to the NRA, said in response to an inquiry made of the nonprofit Tuesday. “The NRA has acted appropriately at all times, and will continue to advocate for the legal right – and practical ability – of Americans to defend themselves.”

Stay tuned.

comments

  1. avatar RF s a BFBD says:

    Next up WA requires gun owner insurance while not letting insurers offer coverage. Back door ban in 3..2..1

    1. avatar supergun says:

      I hope the NRA sues the hell out of the state of washington.

      1. avatar Mikial says:

        They’re going to have to sue or else this will set a precedent that other states will use to do the same thing.

      2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        The problem is the NRA is run by amateurs. Who thought they could get into the insurance business. And they know nothing about the law governing insurance companies.

        1. avatar Bob says:

          Here we go again…NRA bashing. Really? You do know that the USCCA is next, right? This has nothing to do with the NRA and it’s army of lawyers somehow failing to follow the law. You do know that?

        2. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

          It is against state law (in all states) to insure crimes. You can not benefit from a crime through an insurance. This is a well known concept in insurance regulations and insurance companies know that.

          !!! There is no other self defense “insurance” product out there that actually works like an insurance!!! NRA Carry Guard is a rather poorly constructed self defense insurance as it works like a real insurance. The other self defense “insurances”, like USCCA, work like retainers or prepaid legal services through an association, thus avoiding these insurance regulations.

          The people at the NRA, at Lockton Affinity and at Chubb that put the NRA Carry Guard insurance together are absolute amateurs. They should have known that their product violates the law in all 50 states. What happened was bound to happen some day.

          I expect NRA Carry Guard to fold completely within the next few months. The irony is that the USCCA was thrown out of the 2017 NRA Annual Meeting for competing with the NRA Carry Guard insurance.

        3. I dropped their insurance because the bill was &14.00 different from what the application form stated. I called and the guy didn’t know how to answer. “Call back in a few days and ask for Tom”. I called, was on hold for a long time. Called another day, same thing. I let it expire. Still have basic membership.

        4. avatar Angry Dad says:

          This is to Charlie Foxtrot, pseudo legal expert on insurance. So, bright guy, you can’t insure against crimes? So, how about all those corporate D&O policies which pay all those lawyers to defend management when they’re charged with securities fraud? Oh, sure, mainly for civil claims, which can lead to criminal charges, and some for actual criminal proceedings. Also, the ability of corporations to indemnify management for the same. On balance, those who think that this is a politically motivated shutdown, rather than legal fine tuning, have the better argument, and this is without regard to Don Cuomo’s express statements that his motivation and intent in the NY shutdown were exactly political, triumphing that fact. I think you’re wrong.

        5. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

          Well, Angry Dad, at least you clearly show that you don’t understand what I wrote. Ask your automotive insurance company if your liability insurance will pay if you get convicted of vehicular manslaughter. (Hint: They will not pay!)

          Yes, the NRA was targeted. However, The NRA Carry Guard Insurance was poorly structured as it exposed itself to those insurance regulations that do prohibit paying out in case of a CRIMINAL CONVICTION. You may want to learn the difference between being charged with a crime and being convicted of a crime.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The NRA Carry Guard Insurance was poorly structured as it exposed itself to those insurance regulations that do prohibit paying out in case of a CRIMINAL CONVICTION.”

          Not familiar with either NY insurance law, nor NRA Carry Guard, but….

          Not understanding how insurance to pay legal fees UNTIL you are convicted constitutes insurance for persons criminally convicted. Of the self-defense “insurance” programs I reviewed, some only reimburse after you are acquitted, of after an internal investigation that indicates you will likely prevail. Some programs provide legal assistance immediately upon notification of a self-defense incident, without an internal kangaroo court.

          How, exactly did NRA run afoul of insurance laws? My understanding was that the NRA Carry Guard was compliant in NY, but the AG threatened the underwriters with endless audits (copying “operation chokepoint).

        7. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

          Sam I Am, the NRA Carry Guard insurance is an actual insurance product that is subject to insurance regulations. It pays up to 20% of the maximum upfront and 80% after a non-conviction. The 20% of the maximum upfront was paid even upon conviction. That is illegal for insurances in all states.

          The other “self defense insurances” know this and are not setup as actual insurances that are subject to insurance regulations (which can be quite complex). For example, USCCA is not available for NY residents due to the rather complex NY state insurance regulations. USCCA is also currently not allowing new signups in WA state as they are restructuring their products due to the NRA Carry Guard fallout. Existing USCCA customers still have valid policies.

          I think the key point here is that insurance regulations are rather complex. It is important to offer a prepaid legal service or self defense insurance without being classified as an insurance by state regulators. The NRA was specifically targeted after Parkland, which exposed its existing problems in the NRA Carry Guard insurance.

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Sam I Am, the NRA Carry Guard insurance is an actual insurance product that is subject to insurance regulations. It pays up to 20% of the maximum upfront and 80% after a non-conviction. The 20% of the maximum upfront was paid even upon conviction. That is illegal for insurances in all states.”

          That’s helpful, thanx.

          New note…in the case you mentioned regarding auto insurance and commission of a vehicular crime. If a person flees from a robbery, and smashes their car on a mailbox, and that person submits an insurance claim without noting the robbery, would the insurance company legally pay for repairs? If so, what happens after the insured is convicted? Would the company sue for return of the pay-out? In this scenario, would the insurance company be violating insurance laws because of a pay-out prior to trial?

        9. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

          Sam I Am, that could even be failure to report an accident, fleeing the scene of an accident and insurance fraud, depending on the circumstances.

        10. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Sam I Am, that could even be failure to report an accident, fleeing the scene of an accident and insurance fraud,”

          If I ran over a neighbor’s mailbox, I would file a claim for damage to my vehicle, and damage to the mailbox. I would not think to report “the accident” to police (if that is what you meant by “failure to report”). If I were fleeing the scene of a crime when the mailbox attempted to intervene, not reporting the crime would seem not to be germane because I would not be making a claim of damage or injury due to the actual crime, but due to disorderly driving. Not sure I would feel compelled to report that the mailbox became a statistic because I was fleeing a crime scene. But at any rate, unless convicted of a crime, I would only be accused, and not convicted, thus not filing a claim for insurance reimbursement of a crime for which I had not yet been convicted. Indeed, the robbery itself would not even be a crime until a conviction was obtained.

          All of this seems to apply to insurance payment for legal expenses acquired, while still innocent up to the moment of conviction. The claim by NY of “murder insurance” presumes a conviction is assured even before the trial begins. Thus, making legal defense “insurance” inoperative to someone needing financial assistance to pursue a defense…and lodging a defense is not illegal, even if ultimately convicted (although I can see how public safety and justice would be served by making the now-convicted person return all the money spent on defense; if you lose at trial, mounting a defense is a criminal act; yeah, I can see that one coming along in the not too distant future).

        11. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

          Most states have laws requiring to report a vehicle accident when the damage exceeds a certain value. So, a failure to report would depend on state laws and the damage caused. I assume you are not exchanging insurance information with that neighbor while being on the run from a robbery. So, fleeing the scene of an accident would depend on that.

          In any case, your straw man here depends on if there was a crime committed to obtain the insurance benefit. If so, the insurance is void and any already paid benefit needs to be paid back.

          Similarly, “self defense insurances” are completely void if convicted, even for already paid benefits. The NRA Carry Guard insurance was the only one where that was NOT the case for the 20%. A convicted criminal would have received that 20% insurance benefit without a payback requirement. It was a simple oversight issue that all other self defense insurances knew about and had already put in safeguards for.

        12. avatar Sam I Am says:

          It’s been an informative discussion. Thanks for taking the time.

    2. avatar Ark says:

      No, no, no, they want you to carry insurance, but it’s insurance that pays out to the person you shot, not your own defense. You don’t get a defense, because gun ownership is always bad and anyone who shoots another person is always wrong.

      1. avatar OPM says:

        To a roomful of lawyers.. TRO? Temporary Restraining Order? Thank you very much. Some crew I’ve got. Seventeen lawyers on retainer, and you’ve managed to work it out so that, in a free market, in a so-called free country, I can’t buy some some shit-ass stock every other asshole can buy. Congratulations, you’re destroying the capitalist system! While everybody else in the world is embracing it, my boys and girls are fucking it up.

        You know what happens when capitalism gets fucked up? The communists come back! They come out of the bushes, don’t kid yourselves, they’re waiting in there. But maybe that’s not so bad, ’cause you know what happens when the commies take over? The first thing they do is shoot all the lawyers! And if they miss any of you, I’ll do it myself.

    3. avatar RF s a BFBD says:

      I wonder if WA and NY are going to put an end to the FOP Legal Defense Plan, which offers nearly identical coverage to the NRA carry guard?

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “I wonder if WA and NY are going to put an end to the FOP Legal Defense Plan, which offers nearly identical coverage to the NRA carry guard?”

        You are watching an anaconda plan unfold. There are already several, with more on the way. You are watching true federalism (albeit twisted because states are allowed to manage themselves only when the central committee permits); states working out their own internal politics in the great experiment in self-rule.

        Theoretically, the central committee is only allowed limited intrusion into state governance. Except for the few delegated powers to regulate interactions between states, the original concept would lead to a mishmash of state regulations, as we see today in so many matters. Once the central committee arrogated total control of the states via the 14th Amendment, federalism as designed all but disappeared, replaced by centralized power commanding the provinces. Today the central committee is quite pleased to let the states independently rid the country of guns.

    4. avatar JohnD says:

      Excellent point.

  2. avatar NORDNEG says:

    The whole west coast sucks just like the whole east coast,,, all them states are anti gun , most the big cities in those states have the toughest gun laws but have the highest gun related crimes, mostly committed by criminals already. There was a time when Democrats wanted to make it law that gun owners carry insurance on every gun they owned,. Guess they forgot about that.

    1. avatar somethingclever says:

      You realize that GA and SC are on the east coast, right? You can make the case that they aren’t ideal gun rights states, but they are a far cry from anti-gun.

      1. avatar DDay says:

        He’s talking about MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, DE and MD. You knew what he meant, he wasn’t talking about GA, VA, ME, NH, SC or FL

        1. avatar Jack says:

          FL is on its way. Miami, Tallahassee and it seems like Pensacola is going the wing way also.

        2. avatar tfunk says:

          VA is on its way to being anti

        3. avatar Eddie G says:

          So is ME

        4. avatar UpInArms says:

          ” he wasn’t talking about GA, VA, ME, NH, SC or FL ”

          You left out NC.

        5. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

          And Eddie G is right, Maine got blindsided last election too.

          Things aren’t going to get fixed in the courts or the ballot box anymore folks. Too much embedded corruption at this point.

    2. avatar Robroyb says:

      We’re very pro-gun in GA. But it’s true the north east is very ant-gun.

      1. avatar NM says:

        NC isn’t bad either…

        NC, SC and GA need to stick together 🙂

        1. avatar TheBruteSquad says:

          Could be approaching the time for another attempt at secession.

    3. avatar supergun says:

      The west coast states are just about taken over by the communists.

      1. avatar Bob says:

        It is scary to see what is happening. Oregon used to be very conservative until leftist hoards invaded from the South. Portland has become this bastion of Globalist-Socialist ideology, kind of this weird twist on fascism. Black shirted mobs are attacking citizens in the streets if they even remotely look different. I just read an article talking about how violent crime has risen 20% in two years and Portland’s answer was to disarm part of their police department. The left coast is becoming crazyville USA. Although I wish it weren’t true, we are approaching a point where the people may need to rise up to retake our country. Let’s hope it doesn’t have to go there.

        1. avatar neiowa says:

          Portland was full on batshit crazy Prog THIRTY years ago. Not some new thing. Puget Sound was still livable then but the hordes of Kalifornia maggots were taking the place over even then. Add in Microsoft/”tech” and you end up with 2019.

    4. avatar DaveW says:

      Democrats forget about a lot of things they were for in the past…
      slavery
      KKK
      segregation,
      gun ownership
      a wall to halt illegal immigration
      etc
      etc

      1. avatar neiowa says:

        You’re not going to attempt to claim the demtard elites aren’t still KKK to the core? Keeping blacks on their ghetto plantation is essential to their party mission.

  3. avatar Truckman says:

    the states are trying to stop the citizens of that state from owning guns and have insurance to protect themselves if the people want it let them it is there right

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      Well, no, it really isn’t “their right” to do those things

      1. avatar mountaineer says:

        barnbwt: you want to explain that? You don’t state someone doesn’t have a right to protect themselves with insurance without an explanation unless you’re one of those who want a dictatorship!

        1. avatar CZJay says:

          Maybe he thinks the government has to write it down on a piece of paper for the right to exist. Like traveling or driving isn’t a right because it wasn’t written down by some white men. I guess growing food or hunting your own food isn’t a right either. God does’t even exist unless he was written into a book the white men wrote.

        2. avatar supergun says:

          He is a liberal communists. He can’t explain him self when he is full of him self.

        3. avatar EnDangerEd says:

          I believe the reference was to them NOT having a right to ban guns… at least until such time as they remove the 2A from the Constitution…. at which point I think WE should INVADE MEXICO and form our own little nation. Paid for by charging transport fees to the Cartels for getting their stuff into Gringoland. Si?

      2. avatar Jackass Jim says:

        fork you

        1. avatar mountaineer says:

          Real Classy….LOLOL! Who ya gonna eat?

      3. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

        Er….yes it is. Not only are they rights, but both are protected legally. The owning of arms, including guns, by the 2nd amendment, and buying and selling insurance is covered by the 9th and 10th amendments. Then the 14th amendment expands those restrictions on the federal government to the individual state governments.

        Oh, right rights vs restrictions on government. They are synonymous. To protect a right, government must be restricted from violating that right. The right to free speech is protected by the explicit prohibition on congress from passing laws to restrict speech.

    2. avatar CZJay says:

      You must buy car insurance because the government said so. You kind of have to buy health insurance because the government said so. They even want to require you to buy insurance for your guns because guns kill innocent people all on their own. However, if you want to buy insurance to help protect yourself from the government, that’s not acceptable, it’s down right illegal! How dare you try to get more than your moneys worth in lawyers to defend you from the government. Silly gun owner, that’s for people like law enforcement.

      1. avatar Zupglick says:

        And the security guards of the rich-elite.

      2. avatar Eddie G says:

        Here in NJ there is a bill on the table that would make residents buy insurance on their @ssholes. This way you can get it repaired so they can re-destroy it, dry, with their ramming.

  4. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Actually, the proposition is more interesting than a stealth ban.

    Generally, insurance compensates you (or the actual beneficiary) after, as in after, a loss. Compensation for loss is rarely restoration of the item, but cash benefit so that the policy holder can either re-build, re-purchase, or restore the item lost.

    One of the Washington state’s complaints is that Carry Guard and others actually absorb expenses on the beneficiaries behalf, without the beneficiary spending any funds. One can argue that such a program is not insurance, but a blank check, wherein the policy holder is reimbursed for not having absorbed any loss. Such a policy does have the potential (if not direct and immediate) effect of sponsoring what may ultimately be an uninsureable act (a crime).

    I do not know the features of Carry Guard, but I have looked at several “self-defense” insurance programs. The bulk (if not the total) of programs seem to require two things: legal expenses to be incurred, then a claim for reimbursement filed; some sort of “mini-trial”, or review, that purports to determine in advance whether the policy holder is most likely to prevail (be acquitted of criminal charges). These two elements would seem to preserve the insurance characteristic of the programs. The potential for providing “insurance” for illegal acts is negated.

    One of the neat features of banning self-defense insurance is that it serves as a potential deterrent to gun ownership (although the number of gun owners who do not have self-defense insurance would seem to indicate that the inability to obtain self-defense insurance deters nothing). Government may be smoking it own dope on that matter.

    The shuffle off to Buffalo trick of demanding liability insurance for gun owners, then making such insurance illegal would likely stand in Californication, where the state SC holds that a law that cannot be complied with is still a valid, enforceable law. Such circular reasoning is actually in line with “Heller”, where Justice Breyer dissenting declares “The majority determines what regulations are permissible by looking to see what existing regulations permit. There is no basis for believing that the Framers intended such circular reasoning”

    1. avatar Lord of Lies (LOL) says:

      “wherein the policy holder is reimbursed for not having absorbed any loss”

      Huh? Money spent on legal counseling is a loss.

      1. avatar DJ says:

        Sam I am is a liberal far left nut that post at The Hill.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Sam I am is a liberal far left nut that post at The Hill.”

          Thinking you may want to hold your comments until you know what you are talking about. Skim reading for trigger events will lead you astray every time.

        2. avatar Eddie G says:

          Agreed. He keeps referring to it as murder insurance. Sam I Am is a lib.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Maybe the earth is flat?”

          Did you enter the US education system post 1960?

        4. avatar Bob999 says:

          You are right, he is a lefty. The clear giveaway is his personal attack on the people who disagree with him instead of debating on the facts.

          These leftists are an interesting group. I am sure historians and political scientists will study them for decades to come offering intellectual comparisons of today’s leftists with the Bolshevik and Nazis movements of the previous century. Just think, we are witnessing living history where we can actually interact with these new tyrannical minded folks to see what previous freedom minded generations had to deal with. Exciting!

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Another skim reader?

          If you were alert, you would know I stand and debate all the sloganeers and insulters until they just can’t stand it anymore.

          Superficial review of postings, looking for trigger points from which to launch the litany of tired insults and cheap rhetoric is not the sign of a facile mind. Slogans are not facts, nor are they debate.

          If you think stating a “fact” (slogan) is the end of discussion, then poor you. The inability to read between the lines can lead you astray. It is all in your thesis that anyone who posits alternate ideas (disagreement) can be cowed and dismissed from the forum by a fountain of slurs.

          There is a running joke about, and it seems to be lost on you. It is a four dimensional world out here, not a flat surface. If a pure echo chamber is to your liking, you might not like this place. If engaging in brainless shoutdown is to your liking, you might not like this place (lotsa push back).

          Anytime you want to debate a matter without getting all emotional, I am here for you.

      2. avatar NM says:

        Not if it doesn’t come out of your pocket. Carry Guard foots the bill.

      3. avatar Anymouse says:

        Most medical insurance pays your bill without reimbursing you. The insurer or the provider often bill you later if there is a balance after insurance coverage.
        They could call it pre-paid legal or retainer agreement. Are they saying all legal protection insurance is illegal since it could encourage crimes? What business is it of the state whether the insurance covers a deliberate act? Most insurance is void if a client purposely triggers it, such as arson for fire insurance, suicide for life, DUI or off road for auto insurance. If NRA and the underwriter are willing to risk the financial loss of future murderers signing up and exploiting the service, that’s up to them.
        The insurance doesn’t encourage or facilitate murder. Legal representation doesn’t guarantee a not guilty verdict, and no criminal decides that not affording a lawyer is the reason not to commit the crime. Even if it did help murderers, it has legitimate uses too. We don’t ban baggy and bulky clothing because it makes shoplifting and unlicensed carry easier.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Wish we could ban “sagging” on that basis. I am so tired of seeing junior’s damn underwear, I’d like to set a few on fire.

      4. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Huh? Money spent on legal counseling is a loss.”

        The “murder insurance” problem is some programs pay before trial, as in your only costs are the program monthly charges, and you don’t actually incur any lawyer or trial fees (paid directly to the lawyers by the program). Of course, Wash. state could even be banning reimbursement programs, as well.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          I disagree. If I hire an attorney and he charges a $5000 retainer, I have “incrured” a loss whether I pay him or my insurance company does. It is the same for defense fees and costs during trial; all that is required for me to have incurred a loss is that I am held personally responsible for the bill, whether or not someone actually pays it, or more importantly, if the insurance does NOT pay it. So if my carrier takes as powder because the loss does not fall within the scope of the indemnity clause I am on the hook. The same is true for all liability insurance: the insurance company pays the entire cost of defense whether I am negligent or not. It is only an issue if I intended to cause injury, and even then, as the duty to defend and the duty to indemnify are separate duties, the carrier may still have to pay my lawyer unless and until it gets a judicial declaration that the loss is not within the scope of the indemnity provided by the policy.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I disagree. If I hire an attorney and he charges a $5000 retainer, I have “incrured” a loss whether I pay him or my insurance company does. ”

          You incur no loss when you purchase a product; even trade – funds for product. Same as when you buy auto insurance, but never file a claim. Can you imagine trying to declare a loss on that? It would be especially difficult to file a claim to recover your retainer because you didn’t use it, or, even if you did use it.

          “the insurance company pays the entire cost of defense whether I am negligent or not.”
          If you are negligent, it is more likely the insurance company will settle, then come at you to recover their loss.

          In a classic insurance scenario, the perception is you are insuring against “accident”. When it comes to self-defense, the perception is that shooting another person is not an accident, but intentional. And it may be an intentional bad act you would not have committed if you believed you would be held fully responsible for all your legal bills, fines and judgements. Thus, the implication is that you buy self-defense insurance to free you from financial responsibility for an intentional bad act.

          When you analyze “murder insurance” in combination with the presumption that failure to retreat makes you a bad actor, bad person, and the instigator of the deadly conflict, you see how the logic of “murder insurance” works. The general theory is that using a gun in self-defense is unreasonable and unacceptable, therefore, you are guilty of causing the shooting because you could/should have retreated. The “murder insurance” encourages you to not retreat because you believe you will not suffer financial consequences. Otherwise, you would have run away or otherwise disengaged without resort to a firearm.

          It is important to place all anti-gun politics against the consistent polling that nearly half the voters want gun confiscation (called “gun control”), and the other near half of voters want to be able to own and possess firearms. Based on an endless cascade of local and state “gun safety” laws being proposed and implemented, I would venture that the anti-gun mafia has the momentum.

    2. avatar Gregory P Patnude says:

      So it’s really ‘pre-paid’ legal services then…

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “So it’s really ‘pre-paid’ legal services then…”

        That could be argued, but until tested at trial, it appears state officials can regulate it as insurance.

        Actually, even as pre-paid legal services (commonly known as a “retainer”) are state-controlled.

        1. avatar Herb McGillicutty says:

          SIA – says “the presumption that failure to retreat makes you a bad actor, bad person, and the instigator of the deadly conflict, you see how the logic of “murder insurance” works. The general theory is that using a gun in self-defense is unreasonable and unacceptable, therefore, you are guilty of causing the shooting because you could/should have retreated.”

          Here’s the problem with your “presumption” and “general theory” – Both are wrong. Not only wrong in my opinion but wrong legally.

          Failure to retreat – WRONG. Most states don’t require you to retreat due to Castle Docturine. While WA state doesn’t have a true Castle Docturine, it’s laws are essentially that of one. And yes, I am aware this covers you only at home.

          Using a gun in self defense IS reasonable when certain legal criteria are met. 1) Ability- to do you great bodily harm/kill you. Example – has a gun. 2) Intent – They intend to do you great bodily harm/kill you Example, a police officer has a gun (ability to shoot you) but as he walks past you he has no intent to use it to shoot you, Intent not met, you can’t just shoot him. 3) Jeopardy- in this specific situation you reasonably believed that the person was about to do you great bodily harm/kill you. Example- the person sticks a knife in your face and says “I’m going to kill you” 4) Preclusion- You had no other options (you couldn’t run away or by running away you put yourself or someone else in danger) and you did not use greater force than what was called for by the situation. Example, a 90 lb grandma punches a 300 lb professional boxer, and the boxer pulls a gun and shoots grandma, not met.

          So in cases where a person is rightfully and legally justified in using a gun in self defense, why is it that that person should be financially ruined by a $300,000 criminal lawsuit followed by a $2 million civil suit because Johnny crackhead was just trying to get his life turned around and Joe law abiding, tax paying, family supporting, never done a crime in his life before victim gets jacked by the legal system because of your “presumptions” and “theories? And that Joe in the end is found to have been justified and not guilty, but Still has financially ruining legal fees. Hence the NEED for this type of coverage, insurance or whatever you want to call it.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          You are over-thinking this. My point was to explain, not endorse.

          Regardless of law, logic, reasonableness, reality, truth, statistics, the mentality behind the theory of “murder insurance” is what matters. Guns, bad. Gun owners, bad. Any use of firearms, bad. A person who shoots another, bad. Shooting when you should runaway, bad. Insurance that lets you defend yourself in court for being a bad person, with a bad gun that lets you kill someone, bad. Being police, prosecutor, judge and jury regarding the life of another, bad.

          Self-defense insurance means you can kill without any fear of being held accountable; i.e. “murder insurance”. Such protection makes gun owners feel invincible, and above the law. This mindset feeds money to companies that plan to make unconscionable obscene profits through the murderous actions of people who should have runaway, reported the attack, and waited for police to take care of things.

          All the above is what makes “murder insurance” a salable concept.

    3. avatar rip_vw32 says:

      Interesting – thanks for the clarification, that actually makes sense!

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Interesting – thanks for the clarification, that actually makes sense!”

        Glad to be helpful, now and then.

    4. avatar Ing says:

      That’s a good look at the reasoning they’re using, but let’s be clear here — the entire basis of the objection to NRA Carry Guard is that guns are inherently icky and evil.

      The icky badness must be stopped. All the legal reasoning and wrangling serves only to cloak that poisonous wad of hysterical animus in a fake veneer of civic virtue.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “…let’s be clear here — the entire basis of the objection to NRA Carry Guard is that guns are inherently icky and evil.”

        The anti-gun mafia cannot be trained any differently; liberalism is a mental disorder.

  5. avatar MarkPA says:

    This “murder insurance” rationale strikes me as irrational.

    Suppose I am in a state requiring me to maintain liability insurance on any automobile I drive in the state. It’s a reasonable presupposition that my intentions are to drive legally and responsibly. Should I injure someone, there is a reputable presumption that I did so negligently; nevertheless, I am liable and my insurer underwrites my ability to pay the claim.

    Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is also possible that I might recklessly or willfully injure or kill someone using my auto.

    Whether my fault is negligent, reckless or willful is a matter to be determined by a jury (or judge) in a criminal or civil trial. It’s criminal if reckless or willful. Should I be so convicted in a criminal trial, is my insurer thereby off-the-risk?

    Or, more to the point, is my insurer subject to being fined for underwriting a policy before knowing whether I will have been convicted (or plead guilty) to a criminal charge of reckless or willful assault/homicide by auto?

    How are the auto policies distinguishable from “self-defense insurance”? I undertake to carry a firearm as responsibly as I drive. I might injure someone with my firearm by my negligent behavior. It’s conceivable that my conduct might be judged reckless or deliberate, and not with a self-defense justification. Why should I be barred from purchasing insurance to pay for my defense in any trial – whether criminal or civil?

    A ruling against NRA’s CarryGuard policy in any state will cast a long shadow. Arguably, any insurance policy covering liability for a behavior which might be adjudicated to be criminal (by recklessness or willfulness) could be challenged.

    An insurance company might refuse to pay a claim against a crane owner because his operator-employee was reckless/willful. The plaintiff wouldn’t be paid and his tort lawyer wouldn’t collect his contingency fee.

    Or, a crane owner retires and winds-up his business after decades of accident-free service to his clients. He sues his insurer for a refund of premiums asserting that his (incident-free) operator-employees COULD have been reckless/willful; and, had that ever occurred, the policies would have been illegal and the premiums unlawfully collected.

    Neither the tort bar nor insurance companies will tolerate operating in an environment where their policies might be judged void.

    If this reasoning is valid, then it seems difficult to imagine just how a court could cabin it’s ruling against NRA’s CarryGuard to the business line of self-defense insurance, clearly leaving untouched every other line of liability policy where there is any potential for criminal (reckless or willful) behavior by an insured (or his employee).

    1. avatar Rusty Chains says:

      This is why I thought the NY ban was stupid and irresponsible. However, guns/stupid/Democrat politicians are a thing, especially in the blue states. The Democrats hate the idea of carry insurance because it damages their ability to recklessly prosecute gun owners at the whim of an anti-gun Democrats prosecutor. If he is launching a political campaign out of it, so much the better.

    2. avatar Kendahl says:

      Reckless acts are covered. Willful ones aren’t. If you are the victim of an accident caused by a drunk driver, pray he has good insurance. It will cover your expenses, medical and otherwise, that result from the accident. It won’t pay for his lawyer in his drunk driving trial.

      That the drunk’s insurance may pay for his lawyer when you sue him muddies the water. They have no obligation to defend him. They do so to save themselves the cost of a judgement against him. It’s strictly a business decision. They choose the cheaper of a court fight they think they can win versus settling with you.

      1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the bull, get the horns" PR says:

        “Reckless acts are covered. Willful ones aren’t.”

        Drive drunk, a willful but illegal (or outright criminal) act, crash your vehicle, the insurance company will fix or replace (the usual deductions apply, obviously) your vehicle.

        So much for willful ones aren’t covered, eh?

    3. avatar Sam I Am says:

      First, the “murder insurance rationale” (except for the name) is entirely rational. If you didn’t have a gun, you wouldn’t be facing charges, now would you? With “murder insurance, you are more likely to be aggressive and kill someone without a fair trial, or any proof of guilt. Only society should have the power to determine life or death. Regardless of tattoo slogans, there is no dishonor in running away from an attacker or intruder. You made the choice to shoot someone, you shouldn’t expect to skate the costs of defending yourself in court. You especially shouldn’t expect to bilk some insurance scheme to protect your wealth and home from being used to prove your case in court.

      Second, since you voluntarily were engaged in using a firearm to kill or injure someone, you might have committed a crime. Until the crime is adjudicated, you are potentially a killer, and should be left to your own devices to defend yourself, or stay in jail until trial. If you cannot afford bail, or a lawyer, then maybe you shouldn’t have had a gun in the first place. The lawyer part will be handled by the public defender, the bail thing is up to your family (presuming they like you, and all). Only after being acquitted should you receive any reimbursement for expenses. If you have insurance that covers your expenses before you are proven innocent, then you make all the other policy holders gamble on your case. Is that, like, totally unfair, or what? This latter is what generates the name “murder insurance”. Besides, it is royally unfair that only the rich can afford such insurance (ergo, if you can afford murder insurance, you are rich, and not paying your fair share anyway).

      Third, your auto liability policy likely will not pay on the liability coverage until the insurance company is convinced (or you prove at trial) you were not at fault. Auto insurance will not cover your bail, or your lawyer either.

      1. avatar mountaineer says:

        Sam you are nothing but a no fact LIBERAL! Fortunately we’ve got your number and really no one is listening to your socialist/communist lies. If you had half an ounce of brain, ccw insurance is no different than any other insurance, whether it is cancer insurance, auto insurance, property insurance, life insurance, I think you get the drift! The insurance doesn’t cover you to commit any crime, robbery, murder, attempted murder, etc.
        You are just like most democrats/liberals…you tell lies and it becomes the truth. You really are a comedienne by nature! LOLOLOL!

        1. avatar DJ says:

          Left wing progressive Democrat that posts at “The Hill”. And I mean far, far left.

        2. avatar mountaineer says:

          Thanks Dj: we have him pegged.

        3. avatar Ing says:

          Sam is one of us.

          He’s also very good at playing devil’s advocate and parsing the other side’s point of view. He’s a bit of a dickhead about it sometimes, but you take the good with the bad.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Sam you are nothing but a no fact LIBERAL! ”

          Upping your reading comprehension skills might be useful. That and your ability to analyze commentary, and offer more than uninformed mudslinging.

          Had thought to illuminate my comment for you, but I don’t think you are quite ready for prime time. One day, though….

        5. avatar SouthAl says:

          Wishful thinking Sam.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Wishful thinking Sam.”

          Which part? I gots lots a’ wishes.

        7. avatar SouthAl says:

          Sam, the “One day though…” part.

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Sam, the “One day though…” part.”

          Ahhh. The ever optimistic world view. Got it.

          Thanx

      2. avatar charles chenet says:

        Your an idiot with the presumption that I just run away? Oh lets say ah… the elderly or a mom with that just happens to have some kids standing around. Oh I know how about the handicaped or how about the fact that I didn’t start the course of animosity and now I have to deal it.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Your an idiot with the presumption that I just run away?”

          Maybe I wrote the comment too fast for ya’ ?

      3. avatar Batterycap says:

        You know nothing of these policies. But, that is one of the benefits of being a liberal – spout gibberish all day and expect to never be called on it. I won’t even take the time to correct your fact free existence, as it would be as if I were arguing with a tree stump.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I won’t even take the time to correct your fact free existence, as it would be as if I were arguing with a tree stump.”

          To be kind, because you appear to be new here…your reading comprehension skills could use some brushing off.

          Admittedly, I used two different (but not necessarily opposed) approaches to the proposition, so for a first-timer, that might be a bit of a challenge. Ultimately you may find it helpful (maybe even useful) to not read superficially.

          Now, to be completely brutal…if you only want to participate in sloganeering, insult, and echo chamber, this forum may not be to your liking.

      4. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

        The car insurance thing holds water for me. If I didn’t own a car and didn’t drive it I couldn’t have run that old lady down. But the auto insurance I AM FORCED TO BUY will surely be on the hook for something when it all goes to trial. And the insurance company even acknowledges the situation by giving me a better rate if I don’t have accidents.

    4. avatar Ing says:

      “Why should I be barred from purchasing insurance to pay for my defense in any trial – whether criminal or civil?”

      Because guns, that’s why. Now shut up and go away. (That’s the short answer; see Sam I Am for the long answer.)

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Because guns, that’s why.”

        That is the entirety of the intellectual capacity of the anti-gun mafia.

        Asked BIL what independent, unbiased, non-partisan body of research he would accept as sufficient evidence that private ownership of firearms is a net plus. He simply said, “There is none. No one should have a gun for personal use. Research doesn’t matter.”

        1. avatar Sneakachu says:

          Oh, what research is there that shows guns are a net plus? I could use some pointers/links.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Oh, what research is there that shows guns are a net plus? I could use some pointers/links.”

          Reported in/on this frum, CDC admits to at least 250,000 successful defensive gun uses (some research turns up 2,000,000 DGUs).

          If there are annually 33,000 deaths from firearm use CDC data), one must presume that the 250K DGUs do not result in a death each time (which would be 250k deaths from firearm use). Thus, the net benefit is that at least 220,000 people were protected (still living) by successful DGUs. However, lets presume that there were 249,999 deaths from use of firearms. That leaves one person alive who would otherwise be dead. “If it saves only one life…..” results in a net benefit.

  6. avatar CZJay says:

    Your guns must be insured but you can’t be because you’re guilty until found guilty. Welcome to the new America; it’s like Europe again. Good old Western civilization.

    1. avatar mountaineer says:

      Not Europe, but 1933 Nazi Germany! If you read these 2 books you’ll see that the democrats and liberals are doing exactly what Hitler did starting in 1933 and as far back as 1919 in Germany.

      1.)Gun Control in the Third Reich
      Disarming the Jews and “Enemies of the State”
      Stephen P. Halbrook
      2.)Gun Control in Nazi Occupied-France: Tyranny and Resistance
      Stephen P. Halbrook
      Both books available at Amazon and Ebay!!

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        But Republicans are passing gun confiscation orders and championing disarmament through law enforcement. Then Democrats use those orders to disarm whomever they feel is dangerous.

        1. avatar mountaineer says:

          Show me where republicans are passing gun confiscation orders and championing disarmament through law enforcement….and I mean real data, not “well I heard crap”.

        1. avatar mountaineer says:

          Thanks for that CZ.
          Now vote the asshole out of office and put a real conservative in his place!

        2. avatar UpInArms says:

          “and if one life can be saved, its worth it”

          I guess they just hadda throw that in there. Working from a Bloomberg script, no doubt.

      2. avatar Bob Jones says:

        Like Nazi Germany or the early Soviet Union, happening now in Venezuela.
        Step 1 = Disarm the middle and upper classes.
        Step 2 = Seize all the assets of the middle and upper classes.
        Step 3 = Kill off the middle and upper classes, they don’t deserve to live.

        The Nazis actually kept many of the upper class, not so much the Soviets. Don’t really know about Venezuela.

        1. avatar DJ says:

          Registration, Confiscation, Genocide the Marxist history of the Twentieth Century.

        2. avatar DaveW says:

          Anything in this list sound familiar?
          [From “The Naked Communist,” by Cleon Skousen] 1963 Communist goals.
          1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
          2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
          3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
          4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
          5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
          6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
          7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.
          8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev’s promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.
          9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.
          10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.
          11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)
          12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
          13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
          14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
          15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
          16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
          17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
          18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
          19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
          20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.
          21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
          22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”
          23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”
          24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
          25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
          26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
          27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a “religious crutch.”
          28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”
          29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
          30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”
          31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
          32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture–education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
          33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
          34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
          35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
          36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
          37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
          38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
          39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
          40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
          41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
          42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use [“]united force[“] to solve economic, political or social problems.
          43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
          44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
          45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction over nations and individuals alike.

      3. avatar CZJay says:

        Here is the chief of police (who swore two oaths) standing with his men saying they want this tool to disarm law abiding Americans if they think that American is dangerous. Oh, by the way, the NRA wants these tools given to the government.

        1. avatar dph says:

          I’m sick of these police chiefs pretending to be 4 star Generals . If they want to be a General join the service.

        2. avatar CZJay says:

          @dph

          Law enforcement like to go after disarmed peoples. If they were in the military they would have to go to war. In war/combat people fire back and use explosives. They rather kill numerous unarmed Americans…

  7. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

    NRA really screwed the pooch by making Carry Guard an actual insurance plan. USCCA et al. gets around the morass of insurance regulation by making itself an association instead.

    1. avatar Jackass Jim says:

      fork you.

      And Oregon too.

    2. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

      The irony being that the USCCA was thrown out of the 2017 NRA Annual Meeting for competing with the NRA Carry Guard.

  8. avatar Kendahl says:

    CarryGuard wasn’t much of a program, anyway. It only covers defense using firearms. If you do anything other than shoot the bad guy, you’re on your own. It’s also a reimbursement program. You have to raise the money for your defense. If you are acquitted, they will reimburse 80% of the cost. It becomes a Catch 22. You are more likely to be convicted if cost limits your defense.

    The strongest program is CCW Safe. It covers more than anyone else. The price reflects this. ACLDN provides good basic coverage but leaves out some details that are nice to have. Its price makes it a bargain. I don’t know anything about USCCA. In my opinion, if you think you are at high risk or a few hundred dollars per years isn’t a burden, go with CCW Safe. If you are low risk, mostly needing a lawyer to keep you from ruining a good case for self defense, or are pinching pennies, go with ACLDN.

    1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

      ACLDN has a top notch advisory board.

  9. avatar Marcia Mason says:

    Is USCCA also shut down there?

    1. avatar Nanashi says:

      USCAA is set up as an association that pays certain legal fees for its members. They actually researched how to do it legally. The NRA was so eager to steal their business they forgot to do the basic step of figuring out how to do it legally.

  10. avatar Joe says:

    “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” That time is getting close!!

    1. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

      When Tyranny Becomes Law, Resistance Is Duty.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “When Tyranny Becomes Law, Resistance Is Duty.”

        “Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason?
        Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”
        – – Sir John Harington, Epigrams, Book iv, Epistle 5. Compare: “Prosperum ac felix scelus/ Virtus vocatur” (“Successful and fortunate crime/ is called virtue”), Seneca, Herc. Furens, ii. 250.

        Always liked that little ditty.

  11. avatar GGG says:

    CZ, having car insurance potentially saves you from losing your home or giving away your salary because you were at fault in a crash, damaging property, and/or resulting in another person being hurt.
    You don’t have to pay $300/month, you are just required to get the min coverage. It can be as cheap as $60/month depending on the state/city, vehicle, and driver’s record.

  12. avatar JMR says:

    Isn’t there a state that is trying to force gun owners to buy insurance? An irrational sum as well.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      If you allowed your state to document you as a “gun owner”, you deserve what you get. You were warned.

  13. avatar Kendahl says:

    The insurance demanded by anti-gunners is supposed to pay the victims of the gun owner’s negligence. (I don’t know if it would cover deliberate acts since they usually aren’t insurable.)

    The “insurance” offered by CCW Safe, ACLDN, USCCA and others is more like prepaid legal services than insurance. All of the plans review the evidence before agreeing to represent you after an incident. If it appears that you deliberately committed a violent crime, they won’t help you. An example that wouldn’t be covered is shooting your neighbor in revenge for humping your wife.

    It definitely isn’t “murder insurance”. It won’t keep you out of prison, by paying off the state, after you are convicted at trial. All the “insurance” does is enable an ordinary person to mount a strong defense that otherwise could be afforded only by a multimillionaire. That’s the reason for the objections. They want the ordinary citizen to be convicted, because he can’t afford O J Simpson’s “dream team”, or to be financially ruined.

  14. avatar bud says:

    Wow, i really hope the financial industry doesnt team up with the atf to identify transactions for gun related purchases and implement purchase control by regulating commerce of all people. That would be very inconvenient to my freedoms. The banks are all soooo private and independent, it’s just apart of our freedoms to let them exercise their freedoms of of speeches too. I guess it’s just the cost of doing-freedom. Oh well.

    I always thought all of the credit card companies and national banks being consolidated and centrally regulated was a great thing. I could buy all the yo-yos and fidget spinners i wanted from amazon with the click of a button. Now, I’m not so sure…
    I’ll go posit this question on my faceberg account and see what everyone else thinks. If enough people comment that they see no danger, I think it will relieve my worry.

    1. avatar former water walker says:

      All you gotta do is pay with cash…your CC doesn’t know for what you took cash out. The ATF though…😩😢😏

      1. avatar bud says:

        Thank you.

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Wow, i really hope the financial industry doesnt team up with the atf to identify transactions for gun related purchases and implement purchase control by regulating commerce of all people. ”

      Since you asked….

      The threat isn’t cops kicking in the front door to get you and your guns, it is widespread attacks from all directions…

      Guess which two harridans are on the House Financial Services Committee?
      https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/01/15/lord-help-us-all-aoc-will-have-a-hand-in-americas-finances-n2539122?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=01/16/2019&bcid=a9ce9eed6401d2490a50dd5442269feb&recip=27443347

      and this:
      https://thefederalist.com/2019/01/16/two-democrat-gun-bills-fight-like-dickens/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=269445cd69-RSS_The_Federalist_Daily_Updates_w_Transom&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-269445cd69-84012017

      1. avatar bud says:

        that was tongue in cheek, but i’ll make it more obvious next time

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “that was tongue in cheek, but i’ll make it more obvious next time”

          Ya’ got me, Bud.

          My bad.

  15. avatar Edward Rogers says:

    I wonder whether the second Amendment Foundation, being headquartered in Washington, would somehow wish to involve itself. They probably figure the NRA has enough fundage to take care of itself.

    1. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

      The NRA supposedly has already lost $30M in the NY lawsuit. Anyway, this is the NRA’s mess to clean up. The NRA’s annual revenue ($409M in 2016) is literally 100 times bigger than the SAF’s ($4M in 2016).

  16. avatar Hannibal says:

    Idiots: We demand that gun owners carry insurance!”
    Gun owners: Okay.
    Idiots: NOT THAT WAY!

  17. avatar Ralph Glorioso says:

    I am reminded of earthquake damage insurance in The People’s Republic of Kalifornia years ago. Always prudent, I had for several decades a very comprehensive policy from highly-respected USAA Insurance for earthquake damage. Maybe a decade ago, the State banned all private earthquake insurance and allowed only that offered through a new bureaucracy, the California Earthquake Authority (CEA,) which I had no choice but to accept. Up went my deductible, down went my coverage and up went my premiums. It was a total Lose-Lose situation.

    One of the reasons I joined the tea party is that one of its “planks” is “Constitutionally-limited government”.

    Realizing that there was no hope of improvement in that socially, politically, financially and morally diseased state, I packed up, sold both CA homes plus any investments in CA and moved to rural Texas. I just completed all the requirements for a Texas License To Carry, something I’d never dreamed of in CA.

    Frustrated residents of Washington, California etc are encouraged to “take the plunge” and flee to a traditionally-governed state. Where possible, take with you every dime of invested capital you have in states that despise your Constitutionally-guaranteed rights. God bless the Constitution’s framers for incredible selflessness and equally incredible foresight.

    Ralph

    1. avatar Ing says:

      Between the accelerating Californication and the weather — I was mountain-desert born and bred, and these sunless NW winters are slowly sapping my will to live — I’m looking for an exit.

      I put the over/under at about 7 years for the prog/fascists to close the “loopholes” that you and I would call freedom. It’ll probably take me that long to get things in order, so I hope my guess isn’t too optimistic.

    2. avatar mountaineer says:

      Ralph, you made a good choice! Unfortunately I live in the now socialist state of Communist Kolorado! Same as Kalifornia only getting worse. Infiltrated with human scum from other states and around the world. Looking to head further north!

      1. avatar Ing says:

        Well, I don’t know if Colorado is as geographically and politically bifurcated as WA and OR, but you could try to carve out the most diseased part of the state and establish a new, smaller one that doesn’t suck.

        We’re giving it a try in WA: https://libertystate.org/. It’s not at all likely to work, but trying beats doing nothing in the meantime.

        1. avatar mountaineer says:

          We need new voting rules in the individual states, like you have to take a majority of the counties. The big cities are filled with liberal welfare!

    3. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Frustrated residents of Washington, California etc are encouraged to “take the plunge” and flee to a traditionally-governed state. ”

      As it happens, you would seem to be an exception as the majority of people fleeing Californication simply want to re-establish the same living conditions in a place (like Texas) where they believe all the social justice can be had at a lower price. They are oblivious to their own locust-like existence, and will be utterly confounded and loosed from their moorings when they finally run out of places to devastate.

      1. avatar CarlosT says:

        Actually, interesting little bit of polling from the Cruz/O’Rourke race this past year. Native Texans under 35 or so went strongly for O’Rourke. New residents of Texas of any age went strongly for Cruz, by something like 20 points. It suggests that, contrary to the common idea, outsiders coming to Texas are going there for the traditional Texas way of life and it’s a subset of natives that are moving left.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “It suggests that, contrary to the common idea, outsiders coming to Texas are going there for the traditional Texas way of life and it’s a subset of natives that are moving left.”

          It is where the people live that counts, just like Californication. Reading the news feeds, one notes that every major city in Texas is run by Dimwitocrats. About three years ago, the police chief in Houston demanded all pastors, preachers, priests submit sermons for review before delivering to the flock. That is Californication style government.

          Californicators, just like Dimwitocrats everywhere, know that if they control the cities, the can destroy the state.

    4. avatar CarlosT says:

      Yeah, Texas has a draw for me, too, the Gulf Coast, specifically. Don’t know why, exactly.

      1. avatar Elaine D. says:

        As native Texan who has never left, y’all come on down. I’ll take you to the range!

  18. avatar Woody says:

    Let’s look at this situation. You are approached by two thugs wanting to get your wallet and threatening to beat you to death if you don’t give it to them. You pull on them and shoot several bullets into the most threatening one. In the meantime the other thug runs away unscathed. He is captured shortly after the encounter. He tells the police that he and his cohort took off running when the gun was pulled and you shot the perpetrator in the back. In Washington (and similar states) you will be arrested and put in jail. Bond needs to be posted to get out of jail. This is one place the insurance comes in. Also it allows you have legal representation ASAP so that you don’t misspeak during intense interrogation and things are still foggy in your mind. What is wrong with this picture?

    1. avatar mountaineer says:

      Woody, the problem with that is, it makes sense. You and every person with any sense whatsoever know that DEMOCRATS/LIBERALS/COMMUNISTS base their beliefs on half truths and outright lies.
      IT’S NOT ABOUT GUN CONTROL. IT’S ABOUT PEOPLE CONTROL!!

  19. avatar Zupglick says:

    State of Washington has a similar problem as the State of New York. 2/3d’s of the electorate live in Pierce and King counties. When you add in all the homeless and graveyard votes, the rest of the population doesn’t have a chance.

  20. avatar Bigus Dickus says:

    This seems pretty easy to me, stop classifying the product as “insurance”. Instead, it is a monthly retainer being paid for legal coverage should the need arise. Payment of a retainer is not an illegal activity nor is the payment of a retainer considered “legal insurance” in any fashion.

  21. avatar possum says:

    Washington is way ahead of this then face value, any insurance on guns is bad . Oh my house burnt up n I’m claiming,,,,,. Y,,,up okay,,, SHTF ,No I don’t have X guns on policy Mr.Taker, even though I kinda did on the insurance policy huh, No I’m not lieing about lieing.

  22. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    wait what weren’t the libs wanting people to have mandatory policies if they owned guns? How bass ackwards

  23. avatar GS650G says:

    Carry insurance makes it a lot harder to bankrupt people in DGU situations so naturally they are opposed to it.

  24. avatar Aleric says:

    Sue them for SLANDER AND LIBEL and restraint of Lawful trade and take it all the way to the SUPREME court.

  25. avatar Bob999 says:

    I see a lot of undeserved praise and loyalty for USCCA in the comments. Do not be attracted by thier fancy marketing. If you look behind the curtain, which I have, you may be very disappointed. I am not saying that you shouldn’t buy their products though. I am saying scrutinize them like any other company. If you think the product has value, buy it. See, just like any other for-profit, their simple goal is your money. It should be. If this industry wasn’t profitable, however, they would sell vacuum cleaners or some other product instead. Their marketing is pretty good. Lots of great pictures on glossy paper. But, any company can print out a bunch of expensive glossy brochures. It is what they do after you write them a check that matters most. Make sure your expectations of their product will do for you matches what they plan to provide you. I feel like there will be a lot of people complaining in a few years that they threw down a bunch of money and didn’t get what they thought they were paying for. Be an informed consumer.

    1. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

      So, you attack the USCCA for having a marketing campaign, and not actually for anything substantial. Let me guess, you have a product from a different provider and just seek validation of your choice by bashing the USCCA?

      I agree that one should compare products on the market. I also find that some of USCCA’s marketing is quite annoying. Having said that, I am a USCCA member, because I did do the comparison.

      Understand that these products change over time as competition drives the market. The USCCA and other providers have improved their coverage and services due to a healthy competition. The NRA Carry Guard is outright crap in comparison to _any_ of the other products.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “So, you attack the USCCA for having a marketing campaign, and not actually for anything substantial. ”

        Expressing a need for caution is now an “attack”? I thought only the anti-gun mob played with words.

        1. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

          “I see a lot of undeserved praise and loyalty for USCCA in the comments. Do not be attracted by thier fancy marketing. If you look behind the curtain, which I have, you may be very disappointed.”

          There is not a single statement in the above post why the praise and loyalty for the USCCA is undeserved. There is not a single statement in the above post what this person found when supposedly “looking behind the curtain,” which I think is just made up. So, yes, it is an attack as it makes clearly negative statements about the USCCA without any evidence whatsoever.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “So, yes, it is an attack as it makes clearly negative statements about the USCCA without any evidence whatsoever.”

          It’s called an opinion. A person relates personal experience, observation, impression of a product. An attack on an opinion does not provide further illumination, only a declaration that someone offend you. If the opinion is based on wrong information, or a faulty conclusion, the proper response is presenting an analysis that is more enlightening, useful. Just blasting an opinion does not improve the dialog, or information sharing.

          Here is an example:

          My opinion of Justice Kavanaugh is that he will not produce the results so many on/in this forum hope for and expect. Manage your expectations lest you be disheartened when Kavanaugh turns out to not be a 2A absolutist (buyer beware). Based on marketing materials (Kavanaugh’s opinions at court), there is a lot of smoke and mirrors, intentional or not, that will lead to great disappointment.

          A useful response would be a counter opinion, or a counter of conclusion based on the same set of marketing materials. But slamming me because you are hostile to opposing opinion is not a valid argument, nor does it elevate the discussion. Attacks serve no useful purpose.

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “I feel like there will be a lot of people complaining in a few years that they threw down a bunch of money and didn’t get what they thought they were paying for. Be an informed consumer.”

      One thing that is easy to overlook, but actually screams out, is the absence of liability coverage in any of the current offerings. That is, none of the “providers” will pay your damages should you lose. The programs are about representation, not liability. Self-defense legal representation is not a one-stop proposition. As you say, be informed.

  26. avatar joefoam says:

    Maybe the NRA should give up trying to create new revenue streams and focus on the laws that make the need for carry insurance. Back to the core values boys, and stop trying to bait me with trinkets, it may work for some weak minded fool, but not I.

  27. avatar W says:

    Just another means of liberal officials attacking the NRA. If the NRA opened up a hot dog stand in San Francisco, 100 health inspectors would be all over it looking for infractions and violations.

    There’s a pretty big fight on, and the left is focused on the NRA.

  28. avatar Kap says:

    Seattle is the new Chicago as it’s murder rate will increase!

  29. avatar CB says:

    TO OUR GOVERNMENT: PLEASE! I’ve been reading through all of these comments. I’ve heard good as well as bad on this issue. I’m a firm believer in our constitution, and what its initial intent was, when it was written. I also believe that we as sentient beings have the right to protect ourselves from harm. Whether it be from invasion, our own government, criminals, or even from wild animals. Which is why the constitution was written in the first place (well not so much the wild animals part, although?). When a person’s life is threatened, I don’t think anyone has the right to dictate his own self-preservation, but that person. As I’ve read through these comments, as well as from what I see from the media, and our own governments. It does indeed scare me that someone can take my right to live, away from me with the stroke of a pen. I do live in Washington, and I do own guns, and have my whole life. I’ve also been a USCCA member since its inception. I am one of its law abiding citizens that always tries to follow the rules. I also have had to use my legally owned firearm to protect myself, as well as my family and others (fortunately not lethally). And would do so again. I never agreed with the NRA’s carry guard insurance, because, as most have stated, it was very poorly written, and yes was basically an illegal insurance policy. I also firmly believe that it was hastily written to compete directly with the USCCA. I was a member of the NRA briefly, but dropped out after two years, because I didn’t agree with their methods. And yes, as others have also stated, the USCCA is simply a legal retainer, in case the unthinkable ever does happen. If we allow our governments to dictate weather we live or die, then we would basically be guilty of suicide. I just ask that you try not to look at legally, well trained and informed gun ownership as the enemy. The true enemy is the criminal who obtains a firearm illegally, and then uses it or any other weapon, to hurt another classroom full of kids, or a restaurant full of other sentient beings, while they eat their lunch. The best thing we could do is to try and educate these liberals on what we as citizens need for self-preservation. That shouldn’t be to just lock ourselves in our homes and hope that help arrives in time (in my situation, it wouldn’t have). They know, as well as we do, that this world is in the midst of a crises for that very self-preservation. And that there are bad humans in this world that do want to do us harm. I encourage all of you, who do have the legal power, to fight this, before we are all left like the wild animals. DEFENSELESS!

    1. avatar Armed and Sane says:

      I just called USCCA as I heard they are not longer accepting or renewing Washing State members as well.

      The sales rep confirmed that my membership can not be renewed. My account was reduced to a Concealed Carry Magazine Subscriber without a annual fee. This is due to (the People’s republic of) Washington also going after USCCA. This is very disappointing on many fronts.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        Had a hurried conversation with USLawShield. Was informed that they do not accept members who live in NY, but if a member lives elsewhere, they are covered when visiting NY. Asked USLS if they were constituted as an insurance company, subject to insurance department regulation. USLS said they are not constituted as an insurance company in Texas. Pressing engagement prevented a more in depth inquiry.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email