• Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.

NRA Sues New York After Insurance Crackdown

Lord Coke

Silver Belt
@Silver
Joined
Aug 18, 2003
Messages
10,789
Reaction score
13,459
I'd like everyone who posts to step away from the firearms issue and ask yourself if this was any other political issue would you have a problem with what is being done here. The nonprofit of your choice could be the next group targeted by these practices.

Here is a copy of the complaint https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/NRA.pdf

https://www.courthousenews.com/gun-related-fines-out-of-new-york-draw-suit-by-nra/
(CN) – The National Rifle Association sued New York Governor Andrew Cuomo on Friday for what it called a “political blacklisting campaign” that targeted banks and insurers that work with the gun-lobbying group.
“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 33-page complaint states.
Represented by Manhattan attorney William Brewer III, the NRA brought its suit against Cuomo and the state Department of Financial Services in the Northern District of New York.
The complaint begins with a reference to the NRA’s founding after the Civil War and says that this noble history has been trampled “against the backdrop of recent tragedies and a polarized public gun-control debate.”
“Cuomo and the other defendants have abused their authority in an effort to stifle the NRA’s political advocacy and to retaliate against the NRA for the effectiveness of that advocacy,” the complaint continues.
Brewer paired his complaint with a statement Friday.
“Political differences aside, our client believes the tactics employed by these public officials are aimed to deprive the NRA of its First Amendment right to speak freely about gun-related issues and in defense of the Second Amendment,” the attorney said.
“We believe these actions are outside the authority of DFS and fail to honor the principles which require public officials to protect the constitutional rights of all citizens,” he added.
Cuomo’s office has not returned a request for comment on the suit, but the state office named as a department posted a statement on its website Friday.
“As the primary regulator of insurance companies and state-chartered banks doing business in New York, it is incumbent upon the Department of Financial Services to supervise and guide regulated entities to mitigate the risks to their safety and soundness that may derive from a variety of sources, including reputational risk,” it said.
“As part of the department’s ongoing investigation, DFS’s consent orders with both Lockton and Chubb addressed the unlicensed and unlawful activity connected with the NRA’s ‘Carry Guard’ program, which unlawfully provided liability insurance to gun owners for acts of intentional wrongdoing. The department will not stand down from its mandate to enforce New York law.”
Lockton and Chubb are insurance companies that provided insurance coverage to NRA members who shot someone and claimed self-defense. Earlier this month, the department fined Chubb $1.3 million and Lockton $7 million for providing liability insurance to people who in some cases committed “intentional wrongdoings.”
But the NRA attributes these “costly investigations and penalties” to an alleged decades-long “political vendetta” by Cuomo.
The complaint labels the Democrat a “political opportunist who has consistently sought to gain political capital by attacking the NRA.”
The NRA has been called a terrorist organization by activist and filmmaker
Michael Moore, a progressive PAC called Mad Dog, Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy and more than 11,000 people who signed a petition on MoveOn.org.
The NRA, which said it had suffered tens of millions in damages including “reputational damage,” asked for injunctive relief ordering Cuomo and the department to stop interfering with its First and Second Amendment rights and demanded a jury trial. It filed a similar suit in Alexandria, Virginia, earlier this week.
The U.S. gun control conversation has been particularly feverish, and often critical of the NRA, since the Parkland, Florida, shooting on Valentine’s Day that killed 17 people, mostly children. On Thursday, incoming NRA President Oliver North accused Parkland survivors who have advocated for gun-control measures of being criminals.
 
“As part of the department’s ongoing investigation, DFS’s consent orders with both Lockton and Chubb addressed the unlicensed and unlawful activity connected with the NRA’s ‘Carry Guard’ program, which unlawfully provided liability insurance to gun owners for acts of intentional wrongdoing. The department will not stand down from its mandate to enforce New York law.”

Earlier this month, the department fined Chubb $1.3 million and Lockton $7 million for providing liability insurance to people who in some cases committed “intentional wrongdoings.”

Is this the crux of the matter? I assume the core concepts in the US are the same as in Australia, which is that a contract can't be for an illegal end:

An illegal agreement, under the common law of contract, is one that the courts will not enforce because the purpose of the agreement is to achieve an illegal end. The illegal end must result from performance of the contract itself. The classic example of such an agreement is a contract for murder.

So if it turned out the person was guilty of a crime with intentional wrongdoings (per the article) the insurance contract would not indemnify them.

Am I missing something here?
 
Yeah, you're going to have to narrow your discussion and the NRA's grievance.

If this is punishment levied on purely speech grounds, then yeah it's objectionable. If it's punishment for unlawful insurance entitlements for illegal acts, then that as Neph said breaches the public policy requirement for a lawful contract, and the state cannot be party to facilitating such transactions.
 
"On Thursday, incoming NRA President Oliver North accused Parkland survivors who have advocated for gun-control measures of being criminals."

There's not much to say about that, or at least not much to say that's legally acceptable.
 
Yeah, you're going to have to narrow your discussion and the NRA's grievance.

If this is punishment levied on purely speech grounds, then yeah it's objectionable. If it's punishment for unlawful insurance entitlements for illegal acts, then that as Neph said breaches the public policy requirement for a lawful contract, and the state cannot be party to facilitating such transactions.

"On Thursday, incoming NRA President Oliver North accused Parkland survivors who have advocated for gun-control measures of being criminals."

There's not much to say about that, or at least not much to say that's legally acceptable.

And if it is true?

The lawsuit apparently says: The lawsuit claims that Cuomo and Maria Vullo, the chief of the NYDFS, engaged in a “campaign of selective prosecution, backroom exhortations, and public threats” to force banks and insurance companies to end insurance services with the NRA.

Cumo gives a smug semi-denial: Cuomo said he was "proud" of his 'F' rating from the NRA, adding, "In New York, we won't be intimidated by frivolous court actions from a group of lobbyists bent on chipping away at common sense gun safety laws that many responsible gun owners actually support. We have an obligation to protect New Yorkers, and this sham suit will do nothing to stop that."

An official NYDFS spokesman declined to comment at this time.

Obviously a bit early to draw conclusions, and obviously you guys are right to be skeptical of the Thread Starter and news source, but this is from The Hill, and the allegations/reactions from the city seem to be a bit off putting at best.

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/387317-nra-sues-cuomo-for-blacklisting-campaign

As well, Fawlty, that is a bit of a Red Herring to be fair.
 
As well, Fawlty, that is a bit of a Red Herring to be fair.
Not really, it's part of the story and it indicates that our newest version of the NRA is going to be all about slander and lawsuits, according to the vision of its treasonous arms merchant leader. That's the comment I have about the story. Unless you want my legal lawyer opinion of legality that totally matters.
 
And if it is true?

The lawsuit apparently says: The lawsuit claims that Cuomo and Maria Vullo, the chief of the NYDFS, engaged in a “campaign of selective prosecution, backroom exhortations, and public threats” to force banks and insurance companies to end insurance services with the NRA.

Cumo gives a smug semi-denial: Cuomo said he was "proud" of his 'F' rating from the NRA, adding, "In New York, we won't be intimidated by frivolous court actions from a group of lobbyists bent on chipping away at common sense gun safety laws that many responsible gun owners actually support. We have an obligation to protect New Yorkers, and this sham suit will do nothing to stop that."

An official NYDFS spokesman declined to comment at this time.

Obviously a bit early to draw conclusions, and obviously you guys are right to be skeptical of the Thread Starter and news source, but this is from The Hill, and the allegations/reactions from the city seem to be a bit off putting at best.

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/387317-nra-sues-cuomo-for-blacklisting-campaign

As well, Fawlty, that is a bit of a Red Herring to be fair.

But I'm still not seeing anything concrete. I see a lot of vague histrionics alongside documented activity that is perfectly legal (and moral).

I have no problem denouncing Cuomo, as he is a massive douche. And I have nothing against gun rights advocacy, although I will agree that the NRA's methods are often ultra-slimy. But I don't see any cheek-meat to latch my teeth onto.
 
so they are upset that they broke the law opnely and are being investigated?

so much for not wanting criminals to have guns i suppose.
 
I mean, is this surprising? Cuomo is smart, he's played to the average NY citizen that the NRA is bad and is a right wing thing.
 
Not really, it's part of the story and it indicates that our newest version of the NRA is going to be all about slander and lawsuits, according to the vision of its treasonous arms merchant leader. That's the comment I have about the story. Unless you want my legal lawyer opinion of legality that totally matters.

Hmm, perhaps that is true, however to be honest in your disdain for Oliver North and all things NRA it sounds like you have made up your mind about the narrative.

Is that fair, considering the NRA's allegations are substantial, Cummo's response was close to a snickering non-denial, and the official word so far is "no comment." ?


But I'm still not seeing anything concrete. I see a lot of vague histrionics alongside documented activity that is perfectly legal (and moral).

I have no problem denouncing Cuomo, as he is a massive douche. And I have nothing against gun rights advocacy, although I will agree that the NRA's methods are often ultra-slimy. But I don't see any cheek-meat to latch my teeth onto.

Fair enough.

If this is were tennis it would be like the NRA's opening serve, and New York's return via backhand.

Much, much better to keep an open mind about what is happening in this match.
 
Hmm, perhaps that is true, however to be honest in your disdain for Oliver North and all things NRA it sounds like you have made up your mind about the narrative.

Is that fair, considering the NRA's allegations are substantial, Cummo's response was close to a snickering non-denial, and the official word so far is "no comment." ?
I think the legal system will take care of it. It's a speech case, and it's a little complicated. I don't know if Cuomo's snickering is fair or unfair, or if the psychotic NRA actually has something. It sounded awfully drama llama though.
 
I think the legal system will take care of it. It's a speech case, and it's a little complicated. I don't know if Cuomo's snickering is fair or unfair, or if the psychotic NRA actually has something. It sounded awfully drama llama though.

It does have the vibe of two teen fops fighting over dads car keys.

But so much does now a days... oh well, I feel you.
 
Hmm, perhaps that is true, however to be honest in your disdain for Oliver North and all things NRA it sounds like you have made up your mind about the narrative.

Is that fair, considering the NRA's allegations are substantial, Cummo's response was close to a snickering non-denial, and the official word so far is "no comment." ?




Fair enough.

If this is were tennis it would be like the NRA's opening serve, and New York's return via backhand.

Much, much better to keep an open mind about what is happening in this match.

Tennis is the perfect analogy for bickering between white people that I couldn't give fewer shits about.
 
Tennis is the perfect analogy for bickering between white people that I couldn't give fewer shits about.

Luckily all races, genders, and creeds have something stupid to bicker about that we should give fewer shits about.

I'll drink to that, and heal the world!
 
Is this the crux of the matter? I assume the core concepts in the US are the same as in Australia, which is that a contract can't be for an illegal end:



So if it turned out the person was guilty of a crime with intentional wrongdoings (per the article) the insurance contract would not indemnify them.

Am I missing something here?

That is just part of it but the insurance covers the cost of your legal representation and other fees if you are forced to defend yourself with a firearm. There is a bit of a chicken and egg problem. How do you know if the shooting was wrong before the court process plays out?
 
That is just part of it but the insurance covers the cost of your legal representation and other fees if you are forced to defend yourself with a firearm. There is a bit of a chicken and egg problem. How do you know if the shooting was wrong before the court process plays out?
If the insurer is willing to take that risk in the market, they should be allowed to do so without any "leaning" from government officials.
Lobbying is bad enough as is, now the government is lobbying back.
 
And if it is true?

The lawsuit apparently says: The lawsuit claims that Cuomo and Maria Vullo, the chief of the NYDFS, engaged in a “campaign of selective prosecution, backroom exhortations, and public threats” to force banks and insurance companies to end insurance services with the NRA.

Cumo gives a smug semi-denial: Cuomo said he was "proud" of his 'F' rating from the NRA, adding, "In New York, we won't be intimidated by frivolous court actions from a group of lobbyists bent on chipping away at common sense gun safety laws that many responsible gun owners actually support. We have an obligation to protect New Yorkers, and this sham suit will do nothing to stop that."

An official NYDFS spokesman declined to comment at this time.

Obviously a bit early to draw conclusions, and obviously you guys are right to be skeptical of the Thread Starter and news source, but this is from The Hill, and the allegations/reactions from the city seem to be a bit off putting at best.

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/387317-nra-sues-cuomo-for-blacklisting-campaign

As well, Fawlty, that is a bit of a Red Herring to be fair.

All in all, I don't think there's any doubt Cuomo is using this for political point-scoring and anyone who thinks that any political issues ever elicit completely selfless and honest action on the part of the parties involved is completely delusional. That, however, in and of itself doesn't make a specific course of action illegal. Just because motivations aren't pure doesn't mean the goal or the means are automatically wrong/illegal.
 
Back
Top