|
|
|
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:
NY: New York Hits 10 More Insurers With Millions in Fines for Underwriting NRA Policies
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
New York regulators have fined 10 insurance companies a total of $5 million for underwriting the National Rifle Association’s troubled Carry Guard insurance program in violation of state law, The Trace has learned.
The fines were part of a consent agreement that New York’s Department of Financial Services imposed today on insurance companies that did business with the NRA through the Lloyd’s of London insurance market. It is the third such agreement that DFS has reached with Carry Guard insurers this year: In May, the brokerage Lockton Affinity and underwriter Chubb were hit with $7 million and $1.3 million fines, respectively. |
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(12/21/2018)
|
NU Yok regulators need to be fined millions of dollars for undermining the Federal Constitution. That "IS" a crime.
|
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
