|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
WA: 'Murder Insurance' Policies Backed by NRA for Self-Defense Shootings Deemed Illegal in Washington
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Insurance coverage backed by the National Rifle Association that would assist gun owners who later claimed self-defense in a shooting may no longer be sold in Washington state, regulators announced Tuesday.
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. |
| Comment by:
acm2468
(1/17/2019)
|
| The precedent that sets is pretty big. Doctors and lawyers have malpractice insurance, are we going to halt that? What about court appointed attorneys for people charged with crimes and can't afford representation, that would have to go too. |
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(1/17/2019)
|
| The Federal Constitution is apparently not legal there either. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
