What a stunning reversal on the part of the anti-gun cabal!

"Simply put, Defendants made it clear to banks and insurers that it is bad business in New York to do business with the NRA," the lawsuit says. "As a direct result of this coercion, multiple financial institutions have succumbed to Defendants’ demands and entered into consent orders with DFS that compel them to terminate longstanding, beneficial business relationships with the NRA, both in New York and elsewhere."

According to the NRA, Everytown for Gun Safety reached out to Cuomo's office in Sept. 2017 over NRA's Carry Guard insurance program. Specifically, Everytown "prompt[ed] a crackdown by sympathetic government officials that would target alleged compliance infirmities in Carry Guard."

 

For years they have been promoting mandatory insurance for gun owners. The largest marketer of policies for gun owners has been the NRA - And the same fanatic idiots are attacking the relationship between the NRA and the companies that underwrite this insurance. Their Leftist religion has gone rabid, with a frenetic passion to attack and destroy every perceived heresy. The Progressive lunatics are, in the model of Mad Maxine, deliberately striving to instigate mob violence and to prod the mentally deranged among them into lethal behaviors. The threats of low unemployment particularly affecting minorities, an accelerating economy and a strengthening world status go against everything they have worked for. Watching their envisioned, indeed certain achievement of a Venezuelan Utopia crumble, watching their sure-and-certain coup disintegrate has driven them mad.

 

I have never seen in the news reports any criminal activity involving firearms attributed to an NRA member and these insurance policies were available to members only. Liability insurance pays the victim - even when the perpetrator is penniless and dead, so the benefit is paid to the victim regardless of the potential bankruptcy of the perpetrator and would pay the injured party if the shooter is not criminally liable. True, if the victim of the shooting was engaged in criminal activity when shot he well may not collect, but that would be the case anyway. Legal insurance pays the cost of a legal defense, which - if the accused (remember - not guilty yet) has no money and is uninsured will be paid to an assigned defender by the taxpayers. If the insurance of gun owners is not allowed by any state, the demand that it be required by some of the anti-gun cabal would make no sense - which would not be at all unusual for the demands they make.

Comments

FacePalm Added Aug 9, 2018 - 9:59am
I may be a bit slow this morning, but i'm potentially having a bit of a time deciphering what the beef is.
Guessing, here, it's that the NRA offered - to members only - an insurance policy which would pay the one who was shot, if the one shot was not committing a crime at the time?
And the anti-gun lobby was against this, why?
And what was the "stunning reversal"?
 
As for the general topic, i think that the best SCOTUS decision on firearms was from 1875:
 
"[The Right to Keep and Bear Arms] is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed;...  This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,…"
~U.S. v. Cruikshank Et Al. 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
 
Makes the Heller "decision" look pretty lame in comparison, eh?  'Course, SCOTUS these days DARES NOT declare that ANYthing is beyond their jurisdiction, more's the pity.