Washington ACLDN - Received a Cease and Desist Order For Network

[Tony617]

Washington residents cannot buy into the ALCDN anymore

Read More

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

Carry insurance should be a liberals wet dream.. I have no idea why this is being shadow banned in Washington.

 

[Red98422]

Carry insurance should be a liberals wet dream.. I have no idea why this is being shadow banned in Washington.

Because turd Ferguson himself labeled it "murder insurance" and has stated other disparaging things about it.

Frankly it would be their worst nightmare for the defendant to have adequate legal counsel....after all it makes it pretty hard to villainize you for defending yourself

 

[User 1234]

It is of course politically driven, but if they are selling insurance and trying to avoid all of the responsibilities of an insurance carrier (proving they have money in the bank to pay claims and defenses, etc.) then they should correct their operations and apply for an insurance license.

 

[Mathias]

Washington residents cannot buy into the ALCDN anymore

View attachment 675486

Sent email. How in the world can anyone continue to live under this communist regime called liberalism?

 

[Mathias]

It is of course politically driven, but if they are selling insurance and trying to avoid all of the responsibilities of an insurance carrier (proving they have money in the bank to pay claims and defenses, etc.) then they should correct their operations and apply for an insurance license.

Lets hope YOU don't have to defend yourself unless you have at least 250k to defend yourself in court against leftist legal thugs.

 

[bbbass]

Lets hope YOU don't have to defend yourself unless you have at least 250k to defend yourself in court against leftist legal thugs.

All states have insurance commissions and commissioners and rules for insurance. These commish are very protective of their kingdoms.

So, is it not insurance? The commission can rule that it is insurance "in kind". A good example is that an Air Life, or a Lifeflight, med transport "membership" is not available in Washington state. This membership allows the member to be protected against the high cost of a possible medical transport. The word "insurance" or "insured" is nowhere to be found in any brochures, paperwork, etc. But because "protected against" is either stated or implied, the WA state insurance commish ruled it as insurance not licensed in WA, not approved, and therefore prohibited.


bb - Former Air Life of Oregon Representative for NE Oregon

 

[Jonnyuma]

Anti private gun-ownership advocates do, indeed, mischaracterize this type of insurance as "murder insurance".

They also squawk incessantly about the need for a federal law requiring insurance for all gun owners.

They laud our "highly trained" professional LEOs as the only people qualified to carry firearms and call simple range trips "murder practice"... especially when you take a youngster.

There is little-to-no point in arguing with them... they are too GD stupid to see their own inconsistency and laughable nature of their ideology. They speak from a place of hate and intolerance with no break or quarter given to irony or logic.

We fight them at every turn with 0 compromised. Assault and carry through, pursue and exploit the enemy til the end of hostilities.

The above is the tack I've taken, usually after toying with an anti for a bit... cat with a mouse. Easily ended, but let's have some fun (for educational purposes) first. Show them how wrong and hypocritical their positions are and, just when they're about to tap-out due to informational fatigue, let em know that they are in for a fight no matter what their opinion is.

 

[User 1234]

Lets hope YOU don't have to defend yourself unless you have at least 250k to defend yourself in court against leftist legal thugs.

I'm not trying to make a profit selling insurance. If someone is going to sell insurance, great, then act like an insurer. If you buy a gallon of milk and go to drink it, and it turns out the jug is full of urine and of no benefit to you, you'd be disappointed right? If you paid premiums for insurance and when it came time for the carrier to pay for a defense counsel the "not insurance" insurer had no funds available, you'd be disappointed right? That is what the regulation of insurers accomplishes. Calling insurance something else doesn't change the truth.

 

[Mathias]

I'm not trying to make a profit selling insurance. If someone is going to sell insurance, great, then act like an insurer. If you buy a gallon of milk and go to drink it, and it turns out the jug is full of urine and of no benefit to you, you'd be disappointed right? If you paid premiums for insurance and when it came time for the carrier to pay for a defense counsel the "not insurance" insurer had no funds available, you'd be disappointed right? That is what the regulation of insurers accomplishes. Calling insurance something else doesn't change the truth.

They have 2.5 million in the members fund.....do you?

 

[Stomper]

Carry insurance should be a liberals wet dream.. I have no idea why this is being shadow banned in Washington.

Simple.... require "carry insurance" or some insane amount "carry security bond" that's way out of reach for the average masses, then deny all applications for commercial underwriting.... (virtually) no more "carry" by the average masses.

 

[WrenchNguns]

I am pretty disappointed about this situation. The one good thing for me is that I just renewed my membership last month. Hopefully they will get this sorted out.

 

[User 1234]

They have 2.5 million in the members fund.....do you?

If I was an insurance company, yes I would.

 

[User 1234]

USCCA and the other "not insurance insurers" set themselves up for this. I support these companies, and I hope they return to Washington. But when they flout the generally applicable insurance laws entirely they give the anti-gun elected officials a very easy target to shut them down. If they were actually following the laws that apply to all insurance companies, 2A to automobile and renters' policies, the state would have a much more difficult time trying to shut them down.

 

[WillametteWill]

They hate us. Bottom line. We create a plan to share expenses for self defense that is not "insurance." They consider it insurance and say get a license. We get a license. Now they say we are profiting off a criminal act so you cannot have insurance. This defines tyranny at this level. One official gets to decide.

Faith based medical plans are the same way. Legal under ACA, some states have banned them because they are "insurance" even though you send your money directly to another member in need. Along with a note and prayers. How horrible is that.

 

[awshoot]

USCCA and the other "not insurance insurers" set themselves up for this. I support these companies, and I hope they return to Washington. But when they flout the generally applicable insurance laws entirely they give the anti-gun elected officials a very easy target to shut them down. If they were actually following the laws that apply to all insurance companies, 2A to automobile and renters' policies, the state would have a much more difficult time trying to shut them down.

The issue here is not that they are "not insurance insurers" -- they would certainly be fine with the label and license for insurance. The issue is the interpretation that they are insuring criminal acts and are thus prohibited from providing such insurance even if they had an insurance license. Basically, the state wants to financially railroad anyone who engages in lawful SD by conflating such SD with criminal acts.

 

[Koda]

ACLDN is NOT an insurance product.

 

[DB is Here]

A free people should have the right to gather period. Wether it be a barn raising or mutual defense of property. Nobody should have issue with a defensible action to save a life.

 

[User 1234]

Yes, it is. Insurance is comprised of two distinct obligations, the duty to defend and the duty to indemnify. In every state I'm aware of, insurance may be sold to defend against accusations of willful conduct, but cannot indemnify the person for damages they are found liable for for willful conduct, such as punching someone or robbing them. Otherwise the deterrent against these actions would be lessened and more would do it.
I'd like to read the actual cease and desist letter, because it probably focuses on the lack of an insurance license compared to the "murder insurance" political nonsense that appears in the newspapers. The lack of an insurance license presents an easy target.
And no, an organization cannot exempt itself from insurance regulation by saying "we're not an insurer" or "we are a membership organization" which just happens to offer the same defense benefits that your homeowner's insurance offers if someone slips and falls on your porch. You know those "not responsible for rock chips" signs on the back of semis? Their only legal effect is as a warning that the vehicle might be emitting rocks. It does not exempt the trucking company from liability.

 

[Koda]

And no, an organization cannot exempt itself from insurance regulation by saying "we're not an insurer" or "we are a membership organization" which just happens to offer the same defense benefits that your homeowner's insurance offers if someone slips and falls on your porch.

Except that ACLDN does not 'have' to take your case and offers no services in your defense other than monetary support. An insurance company has to take your case and provide services (like lawyer in self defense).