Cuomo cancelled my insurance for gun theft

[Hunter007]

All this stuff needs to get up to the supreme court to decide. 

I believe these are laws   that have no objective except to infringe on peoples  second amendment rights  what does insurance have to do with crime ?  What about knife insurance or maybe  chainsaw insurance  ? 

 

 

[Nomad]

4 minutes ago, CapDistPatriot said:

Good idea, i need to look into it. Can you please PM me the name of the broker/company you went with?

I wasn’t clear, I went with a jewelry insurer for our jewelry, not guns they don’t do guns .

jewelers mutual .

[Jdubs]

22 minutes ago, CapDistPatriot said:

The Kavanaugh effect, that decision he just took on Planned Parenthood must have spooked NYSRPA

TK blamed Roberts.  

[CapDistPatriot]

9 minutes ago, Jdubs said:

TK blamed Roberts.  

Oh really?  Why is that? 

[Jdubs]

26 minutes ago, CapDistPatriot said:

Oh really?  Why is that? 

He never voted pro-2A in a 2A case.

[sits in trees]

13 hours ago, WNYBuckHunter said:

Does HO insurance cover your legal fees if you have to shoot someone in self defense? The NRA insurance does. Sorry man, you dont know what youre talking about in this case.

Yea see how much of your legal fees are covered if you shoot someone in any situation with a Shyster insurance policy issued by the NRA. Do me a favor and let me know when you call them and ask for  that 50k retainer an attorney is going to ask for, I would love to be there for a good BaaWaaHaaHaa when they put you on hold

[CapDistPatriot]

11 hours ago, Jdubs said:

He never voted pro-2A in a 2A case.

Jdubs i just checked Tom king's twitter feed, and the NYSRPA website and found nothing. Where did you see all these latest comments?

[WNYBuckHunter]

2 hours ago, sits in trees said:

Yea see how much of your legal fees are covered if you shoot someone in any situation with a Shyster insurance policy issued by the NRA. Do me a favor and let me know when you call them and ask for  that 50k retainer an attorney is going to ask for, I would love to be there for a good BaaWaaHaaHaa when they put you on hold

Seeing as the insurance isnt funded or actually provided by the NRA, rather regular insurance companies, Lockton Affinity and Illinois Union Insurance, I would trust it. You just have some strange bone to pick with the NRA for whatever reason, and are spouting off nonsense that you have no clue about. You are one of the most anti second amendment gun owners Ive ever encountered, and your own worst enemy. I think Ill start a gofundme to take up a collection so you can afford to go buy a clue.

[Jdubs]

2 hours ago, CapDistPatriot said:

Jdubs i just checked Tom king's twitter feed, and the NYSRPA website and found nothing. Where did you see all these latest comments?

NYSRPA fb feed.

[CapDistPatriot]

27 minutes ago, Jdubs said:

NYSRPA fb feed.

Ok I see now TY

[Rattler]

I called the NRA today and was told they can no longer even cover NY residents with the basic free insurance for firearms theft.  I forgot to ask if they still cover us with the free liability insurance for accidents while hunting, or the life insurance for death while hunting, both of which are still provided and free to members in other states.

As far as how good the coverage is, I personally know members who have collected thousands on stolen firearms that were covered through NRA insurance programs.  Anything above what they offer for free with your membership, costs extra and is paid to the private insurance company, just like any other insurance policy you would buy.  But the costs through the NRA programs has always been far less than any other source.  You get a legal contract binding the company to the deal.  Anyone who thinks they don't pay has no idea what they are talking about and obviously has never used their coverage.

The NRA has often published info on members who have died while hunting and their family's were paid the insurance.

People who bash the NRA really aggravate me because they are full of crap and are trashing the only organization in this country that does anything of value for it's members with respect to protecting your right to own any firearms at all.

If anyone here cares to provide info on any pro 2nd A group that provides more benefits to gun owners, I'd be more than happy to see it here.  If you bash the NRA, but don't provide an alternative, you're just a whiner.

[philoshop]

18 hours ago, CapDistPatriot said:

Very true on the second part of your post, but where in the constitution does it say that states are free to interpret the constitution as they see fit? Also, where in the constitution does it say that if a state doesnt agree with an amendment in the bill of rights, that they are free to infringe upon it? I am sorry but i must have missed that part.

I don't have my pocket copy of the Constitution immediately available. It might be in the truck.

To paraphrase: The individual states are given powers to make laws that are not expressly given to the Federal Government. The entire document was about limiting Federal power over the States. If a State decides that it's citizens should not be armed, they have the right to pursue that avenue, and the citizens have the right to reject it at the ballot box.

The U.S. Constitution does not limit State's rights. It was designed to limit the power of the Federal Government.

[Steuben Jerry]

7 hours ago, sits in trees said:

Yea see how much of your legal fees are covered if you shoot someone in any situation with a Shyster insurance policy issued by the NRA. Do me a favor and let me know when you call them and ask for  that 50k retainer an attorney is going to ask for, I would love to be there for a good BaaWaaHaaHaa when they put you on hold

Sits, so, since the NRA is no good, what's your suggested alternative to an organization that supports our sport?

[Rattler]

Robert Hartwig, director of the Risk and Uncertainty Management Center at the Darla Moore School of Business at the University of South Carolina, said other states were unlikely to follow New York's lead.

"I think they will look at it but I think that New York is unlikely to be followed by many states," Hartwig said. "I think its interpretation is somewhat unique. Between the coasts...I think it is unlikely that there will be action against the Carry Guard product."

Insurance companies are generally prohibited from covering people involved in criminal activity because it's against public policy to encourage or protect people involved in illegal acts.

While most homeowners insurance policies will respond to insureds involved in civil litigation stemming from an accidental shooting or someone protecting themselves in a home invasion, Hartwig said Carry Guard goes further by offering criminal defense until there's a pleading or a finding of guilt.

"What the state (of New York) is in effect saying is we are not going to allow you to fund your defense, you're going to potentially go into bankruptcy, mortgage your house," Hartwig said. "If you're found innocent or the case is dismissed, you're financially ruined."

[Rattler]

Perfect case example of NY bias.

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-NRA-Carry-Guard-insurance-illegal-but-medical-malpractice-insurance-is-not-Aren-t-they-both-insurance-against-lawsuits

[Marion]

Perfect case example of NY bias.
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-NRA-Carry-Guard-insurance-illegal-but-medical-malpractice-insurance-is-not-Aren-t-they-both-insurance-against-lawsuits

I was happy to see some answers on gun owners sides but the main seems slanted against guns

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[jmark]

1 hour ago, philoshop said:

I don't have my pocket copy of the Constitution immediately available. It might be in the truck.

To paraphrase: The individual states are given powers to make laws that are not expressly given to the Federal Government. The entire document was about limiting Federal power over the States. If a State decides that it's citizens should not be armed, they have the right to pursue that avenue, and the citizens have the right to reject it at the ballot box.

The U.S. Constitution does not limit State's rights. It was designed to limit the power of the Federal Government.

 

That's not actually correct.  A state cannot, for example, pass a law that says women cannot vote... or Hindus may not have their places of worship ... or that newspapers may not criticize sitting judges... or that a person cannot purchase a firearm for self-defense.  Just as a few examples.  The reservation to the states of powers not expressly granted to the federal government - that is, the Tenth Amendment, which is part of the same Bill of Rights that contains the Second - cannot in any way allow a state to actually infringe another constitutional right.  That's a different issue entirely.  The Tenth Amendment is not an expansion of state rights per se - it is a limitation of federal rights.  

The notion that states may pass laws restricting gun ownership or use comes from a very different principle - which is that, generally speaking, no constitutional right is "absolute."  All rights are subject to "reasonable time, place and manner restrictions."  Which is why, although a state (or municipality) cannot pass a law to prohibit people from "peaceably assembling to seek a redress of grievances," it can pass laws dictating where, when and how such assembly may be done.  Such laws are then subject to scrutiny under a range of judicial tests, such as, does the law in question reasonably relate to a legitimate state interest?  The exact level of scrutiny depends on the federal right being "infringed" by the local law.  

State laws restricting gun purchase, ownership or use are subject to that kind of analysis - are they reasonable in light of the interest served as compared to the level of restriction of the constitutional right in question?  That is, the Second Amendment.  This is obviously a rather vague and open-ended question, which is why we have such a bizarre range of gun laws in this country.  

There is some fairness and truth in the notion that, one may "vote with their pocket book" and leave a state where the laws offend one.  This was basically Rehnquist's philosophy - that the states are a collection of individual local "experiments."  The question is always, where are the lines drawn?  Personally, I think the Second Circuit (and others) have been dead wrong, many times on this, including re the SAFE Act.  We can only hope for better going forward.

Also, btw, whoever said Roberts has never joined in a 2A decision is very wrong.  We can start with Heller...  

[CapDistPatriot]

19 hours ago, philoshop said:

I don't have my pocket copy of the Constitution immediately available. It might be in the truck.

To paraphrase: The individual states are given powers to make laws that are not expressly given to the Federal Government. The entire document was about limiting Federal power over the States. If a State decides that it's citizens should not be armed, they have the right to pursue that avenue, and the citizens have the right to reject it at the ballot box.

The U.S. Constitution does not limit State's rights. It was designed to limit the power of the Federal Government.

The Bill of rights are different. The state cannot take them away from us. They  are inalienable and apply to all U.S. citizens. If Andy finds he doesn't like the editorial board of a certain newspaper in western NY because they are too critical of his tyrannical left wing policies, does he have a right to pass legislation or sign an executive order censoring that paper's editorial board? How about all conservative thought and opinion in the NY press? 

What you are saying is totally not true. The US Supreme court ruled that states can pass some gun control measures, however they left open to interpretation how much. They did rule that they cannot go so far as to infringe on the Constitution, as the Constitution is superior to any state constitution, and all state governing documents must be compliant with the US constitution to be valid.  The District Of Columbia already tried this via an outright ban on all handguns outside of law enforcement, and it was shot down in the Heller case.  

[CapDistPatriot]

18 hours ago, jmark said:

 

That's not actually correct.  A state cannot, for example, pass a law that says women cannot vote... or Hindus may not have their places of worship ... or that newspapers may not criticize sitting judges... or that a person cannot purchase a firearm for self-defense.  Just as a few examples.  The reservation to the states of powers not expressly granted to the federal government - that is, the Tenth Amendment, which is part of the same Bill of Rights that contains the Second - cannot in any way allow a state to actually infringe another constitutional right.  That's a different issue entirely.  The Tenth Amendment is not an expansion of state rights per se - it is a limitation of federal rights.  

The notion that states may pass laws restricting gun ownership or use comes from a very different principle - which is that, generally speaking, no constitutional right is "absolute."  All rights are subject to "reasonable time, place and manner restrictions."  Which is why, although a state (or municipality) cannot pass a law to prohibit people from "peaceably assembling to seek a redress of grievances," it can pass laws dictating where, when and how such assembly may be done.  Such laws are then subject to scrutiny under a range of judicial tests, such as, does the law in question reasonably relate to a legitimate state interest?  The exact level of scrutiny depends on the federal right being "infringed" by the local law.  

State laws restricting gun purchase, ownership or use are subject to that kind of analysis - are they reasonable in light of the interest served as compared to the level of restriction of the constitutional right in question?  That is, the Second Amendment.  This is obviously a rather vague and open-ended question, which is why we have such a bizarre range of gun laws in this country.  

There is some fairness and truth in the notion that, one may "vote with their pocket book" and leave a state where the laws offend one.  This was basically Rehnquist's philosophy - that the states are a collection of individual local "experiments."  The question is always, where are the lines drawn?  Personally, I think the Second Circuit (and others) have been dead wrong, many times on this, including re the SAFE Act.  We can only hope for better going forward.

Also, btw, whoever said Roberts has never joined in a 2A decision is very wrong.  We can start with Heller...  

I should have scrolled down before I posted

Edited December 13, 2018 by CapDistPatriot

[raymerlo]

Remember what Pataki did,he caved to the anti's, Clinton assault weapons bill had a sunset clause of 3 years.

We had not once but twice a chance to change this,but thru no fault of ours in trying to get sportsman to get out and vote.

I cant believe the voters in this state are that nieve to vote this chump in again not once but three times

And then have someone talk against the NRA does not make sense,if not for them we could not own a pea shooter 

 

[Five Seasons]

Very true on the second part of your post, but where in the constitution does it say that states are free to interpret the constitution as they see fit? Also, where in the constitution does it say that if a state doesnt agree with an amendment in the bill of rights, that they are free to infringe upon it? I am sorry but i must have missed that part.

Guns are regulated at the federal level. All NY really did was to regulate them further.

We don’t have to like it, but we all still bear arms. Just not every make and model.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Culvercreek hunt club]

10 hours ago, Belo said:

 

Guns are regulated at the federal level. All NY really did was to regulate them further.

We don’t have to like it, but we all still bear arms. Just not every make and model.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

you're right, we don't have to like it. We also don't have to accept it or sit still while it takes place. 

[Rattler]

13 hours ago, Belo said:

Guns are regulated at the federal level. All NY really did was to regulate them further.

We don’t have to like it, but we all still bear arms. Just not every make and model.

 

The question becomes, constitutionally how far are they allowed to go?  Can we be limited to single shot rifles and shotguns?  Can they outlaw everything else, even single shot handguns?

I have filed a formal complaint with the NY Div of Financial Services regarding Cuomo's actions that caused the cancellation of my insurance, because it leaves me very few options to replace it, and all of the options are far more expensive.

All NY gun owners should file a complaint with NY DFS so the overlord knows we aren't going to accept whatever he decides to shove.  If nobody complains, Cuomo will continue to do whatever he pleases with impunity.

 

 

Edited December 14, 2018 by Rattler

[Steve D]

5 minutes ago, Rattler said:

All NY gun owners should file a complaint with NY DFS so the overlord knows we aren't going to accept whatever he decides to shove. 

Most gun owners don't even vote so I am pretty sure you won't get them to "file a complaint". There are more than enough gun owners in the state to vote him out and send a message to the rest of the gun grabbing politicians.  When we had our chance we blew it so we are stuck until he becomes president. He can do a lot of damage between now & then and I expect he will.

 

[Rattler]

I'm already looking into moving to Pennsylvania and taking my tax dollars with me.  I feel bad for all the people I patronize here in NY, as they will be the one's losing most of my money.