search
top

NRA Carry Guard

I guess NRA got tired of everyone else making money off “carry insurance” and decided to create their own. They are promoting it very heavily at the convention. I expect at the price level they are charging, it’s going to be a decent source of revenue for NRA. Anything that brings in money and doesn’t require pestering members for donations is probably a good thing.

But I keep thinking “What if George Zimmerman had Carry Guard?” NRA would have gotten dragged into that hot mess. Would that kind of PR nightmare be worth it? I guess at some point that pot of potential money gets big enough it’s worth the risk.

32 Responses to “NRA Carry Guard”

  1. Dannytheman says:

    So many questions.

    I am wondering if the NRA would trade the ability of this insurance for National Reciprocity? States may mandate coverage? Is that conspiracy theory?

    A separate Instructor certification is needed? Not PPOTH? The NRA team responsible are Navy Seals? (Tactical oriented?)

    It is a reimbursement program insurance. So you pay and get reimbursed. I am going to be patient, but I have many more questions than I do happy thoughts.

    • Bitter says:

      I am going to be patient, but I have many more questions than I do happy thoughts

      You and I both. I’m skeptical on so many levels. I was less than pleased when we were trying to talk actual shooting-related matters related to NRA membership with a staffer who said he could only spend a bit with us because he was supposed to be spending his time signing people up. I don’t think he was trying to dismiss us, as he was eager to talk, but I suspect they told all staffers that selling this stuff was a bigger priority than member services.

  2. Yeah, but, USCCA is very clear that they’re not selling insurance. So is it or isn’t it insurance. This whole CCW insurance stuff seems pretty questionable to me. The biggest problem the NRA has with any education program it offers is the quality of the instructors and their inability to stay on course when in class. There are a lot of NRA basic pistol instructors out there who are horrible and belong nowhere near students or even a firearm.

  3. Joe A says:

    They’ve had defense “insurance” for a while, underwritten by Lockton risk.

  4. Whetherman says:

    I’ve noticed already that there is an appearance of the NRA discriminating against what will be competitors in the CCW insurance marketplace. USCCA was reportedly disinvited from the National Meetings and Second Call Defense was allegedly denied exhibit space.

    If that is true, it was a very bad move on NRA’s part, IMO, because it will help feed the narrative that the NRA is nothing but a mercenary outfit in the service of its own for-profit businesses, “the firearms industry,” and the private prison industry.

    In this example, they should have forfeited a few shekels (if fear of competition was their real motive for cold shoulders to otherwise friendly outfits) in the interest of image.

    On the other hand, if there is some fault in the way those two competitors handle their business, the NRA should tell us.

    • Whetherman says:

      “USCCA was reportedly disinvited from the National Meetings and Second Call Defense was allegedly denied exhibit space.”

      Source articles are here and here.

    • FiftycalTX says:

      OH? So if NRA were to not offer INSURANCE (which is under written by an outside firm as is about 90% of all insurance) then the media would love us? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

      • Whetherman says:

        ” then the media would love us?”

        No, but it would appear you’re anxious to provide ammo for them to use to attack us.

        As I said the first time, “it will help feed the narrative that the NRA is nothing but a mercenary outfit in the service of its own for-profit businesses…”

        • FiftycalTX says:

          So USCCA and the other “carry insurance” should provide free advertizing to NRA? I guess you think Ford should “mention” Chevy and Dodge? Or do you understand the concept of BUSINSS?

          • Whetherman says:

            “So USCCA and the other “carry insurance” should provide free advertizing to NRA?”

            No, I think NRA should make up its mind whether it’s in the business of promoting gun rights and encouraging sport shooting, or, competing in for-profit businesses that are somewhat gun related (unlike its business of promoting “LifeLock” to its members, which is not gun-related at all.)

            Many of us remember unfondly, NRA’s foray into selling “cancer insurance,” in which business it lost its proverbial shirt, and the money had to be made up with dues and donations.

            • FiftycalTX says:

              Too bad NRA isn’t “pure” enough for you. I guess you REALLY HATE the wine club since gunz and alcohol don’t mix. But I don’t care if NRA sells medical marijuana via UPS as long as they work to protect the Second Amendment. Now you may prefer the virtue that social just us warriors like Larry Pratt or SAGF try to promote, but I’ll stick with NRA, warts and all. And NO, I won’t change to NRA insurance. It’s more expensive than the one I have. And no matter WHAT they do, the lamestream media is ALWAYS going to diss NRA. There is NOTHING we can do to change that except laugh at their foolish mistakes (shoulder thing that goes up, 10 shots from a 6 shot revolver, etc.) PRESIDENT TRUMP didn’t get elected worrying about how the “optics” of his campaign “felt” with the socialists. If you aren’t up for defending the Second Amendment, take up knitting or ham radio.

              • FiftycalTX says:

                Sorry, I meant NAGR. I never log on to that fools site so I forget the acronym.

              • Whetherman says:

                “But I don’t care if NRA sells medical marijuana via UPS as long as they work to protect the Second Amendment.”

                Yet you refuse to acknowledge there is any possibility that the NRA could go off on tangents that are harmful to that “protecting the Second Amendment” goal?

                I’m glad you brought up NAGR. They are made up of people who, if they ever truly gave high priority to protecting the Second Amendment, eventually evolved to fundraising as their primary priority, with the 2A being nothing but a framework for doing that. All along the way they made the argument that they couldn’t do Good Works unless they brought in ever more money. It became sort of a “prosperity theology” for them; making money proved that God was on their side.

                So, I’ve watched it happen, and I know it could happen.

                “If you aren’t up for defending the Second Amendment, take up knitting or ham radio.”

                May I point out that you’re the one who started out by badmouthing expectations of a little Second Amendment purity, even if the alternative to that purity is to subvert the cause?

                • Whetherman says:

                  Mike Rothfeld is one of the silent principals of NAGR. Dudley Brown is its louder, public face.

                  . . .the most revealing moment of the weekend came when a man named Mike Rothfeld took the stage. His speech, he said, was supposed to be about leadership. Halfway through it, he pivoted.

                  “Money!” said Mike Rothfeld. “Oh, that’s a dirty word, isn’t it?”

                  Rothfeld, founder of Virginia-based Saber Communications was delivering his pitch at the annual conference. In Paul-world, Rothfeld is an important figure; of the $40.6 million raised for Ron Paul’s 2012 presidential campaign, nearly $7.7 million went to Saber. Rothfeld’s firm had basically mastered the art of direct-mail fundraising, and some people in the liberty movement—some very loud people—had a problem with this.

                  Just for clarity: I have a problem when fund raising becomes The Cause, at the expense of what is claimed to be a group’s Cause.

                • FiftycalTX says:

                  “Yet you refuse to acknowledge there is any possibility that the NRA could go off on tangents that are harmful to that “protecting the Second Amendment” goal?”

                  And what entity is going to determine that what the NRA has done is “Harmful” Elmer? YOU? ABCNNBCBS?

                  I’m glad you brought up NAGR. They are made up of people who, if they ever truly gave high priority to protecting the Second Amendment, eventually evolved to fundraising as their primary priority, with the 2A being nothing but a framework for doing that. All along the way they made the argument that they couldn’t do Good Works unless they brought in ever more money. It became sort of a “prosperity theology” for them; making money proved that God was on their side.

                  So, I’ve watched it happen, and I know it could happen.

                  “If you aren’t up for defending the Second Amendment, take up knitting or ham radio.”

                  May I point out that you’re the one who started out by badmouthing expectations of a little Second Amendment purity, even if the alternative to that purity is to subvert the cause?

                  “purity is to subvert the cause?” In your OPINION Elmer. I’ve been doing this (supporting the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS) for a long time. And FUDDS like you make me sick. You think if we “just” let “them” have “universal background checks” you can keep your “sniper rifles” and over/under fine shotguns. NO, Elmer. ALL OR NOTHING! Thank allah that PRESIDENT TRUMP will populate the Supreme Court for the next 4/8 years. Otherwise we would be looking at Venezuela like restrictions on our GUN RIGHTS. Now I guess you are a yankee and don’t care about gun rights. Well, I carry whenever I am out of my house. You don’t like it, read the Constitution and amend it to get rid of the Second Amendment. Lotsa luck. MOLON LABE!

                  • Whetherman says:

                    “And what entity is going to determine that what the NRA has done is “Harmful”

                    Something called “the public,” and believe it or not, even gun owners are part of that public. Since perfect censorship has not yet been achieved, they will be subject to all kinds of influencing sources, that you can’t control.

                    I notice on other gun sites, a fair number of negative comments about the NRA. That kind of thing is subtle, but influences everything from, the NRA’s ability to influence votes, to, how many members they can recruit, to, how many donations they receive, and God knows how many other things. So, something like acquiring an image with some people of being nothing but money-grubbers can negatively affect their overall mission; and “is a few bucks worth it?” is a reasonable and valid question.

                    You seem to attribute an awful lot of beliefs to me, based only on that I don’t suck up your brands of bullshit. Fact is, if we confined things to the single issue of guns rights, I’m generally to the right of the NRA. That doesn’t mean I have to buy the entire right wing package, or allow it to influence what I believe about gun rights.

  5. Tom Murin says:

    From the link, it states on the card that it is “backed by Chubb.” Chubb is the insurance company. It looks like it is just an affinity marketing thing. They are endorsing a branded product and getting a piece of the action. That is very common practice. Almost all professional associations do this type of thing.

    • Whetherman says:

      Unless I misunderstand what you’re saying, that sounds even worse in the context of what I said above (“disinviting competitors”), because it sounds like giving NRA a piece of your action is the entry fee for the Meetings.

      • FiftycalTX says:

        So, do you think it would be a good “image” to offer the Mommies demand attention, Brady and the other anti-gun astroturf fronts free space in the convention to make it “fair”?

        • Whetherman says:

          “So, do you think it would be a good “image” to offer the Mommies demand attention, Brady and the other anti-gun astroturf fronts free space in the convention to make it “fair”?”

          WTF are you talking about?

          USCCA and Second Call are in a pro-gun business. As such they are presumably natural allies, or at least in an entirely gun-relevant business.

          I guess I can do nothing but repeat myself, but, if NRA denies them access to the Meetings it at least has the appearance of snubbing friends and allies for shallow mercenary reasons, and that doesn’t look good.

          “Fairness” has nothing to do with it, and you’re the only one to introduce the concept.

          If either organization is doing something that could construed to be counter-productive to the cause, and that’s the real reason, it needs to be explained — before anyone asks.

      • Tom Murin says:

        I was commenting on the main post and was not considering your comment. I tend to agree with you. I’d prefer to see things wide open and let the customers decide. I think being NRA sanctioned would be a big benefit, of course, but it should not exclude competetion.

  6. Maine Constitutional Carry says:

    Anyone interested in this topic should check out the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network (ACLDN).

    https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/

    They have the best, most qualified, board of directors, over $1 million in the bank to PRE-PAY legal expenses associated with a legitimate self-defense case, and on-going training to minimize the chance of even being caught up in such a case.

    The problem with legal reimbursement plans is that few people have the resources to mount an effective defense UP FRONT when it counts. The ACLDN pays UP FRONT when it counts.

    Check them out.

  7. Ian Argent says:

    I dunno, the NRA is going to get dragged into whatever hot messes someone with a legally-owned handgun get into regardless. They may as well get a piece of some action at the same time.

    OTOH, the appearance of impropriety in the handling of the competition in this space is not a good sign.

    • Whetherman says:

      “the appearance of impropriety in the handling of the competition in this space is not a good sign.”

      One of the characteristics of our current era is, that it seems an awful lot/most people seem to be assuming they no longer need to be subtle in their politics or public relations.

      I can’t say for certain, but I suspect they are making a long-term mistake.

      • Ian Argent says:

        I’m a big fan of avoiding the appearance of impropriety, myself. If you avoid the appearance, you can avoid of lot of the actuality, as well.

  8. Jim Jones says:

    Personal liability insurance is dirt cheap. I haven’t read their exclusions, but at about $100 per million of coverage, it would make more sense.

  9. Adam Davis says:

    Guys… The NRA Carry Guard Insurance fails to do what you primarily need this insurance for. (Pay your legal defense as it happens so you don’t have to outlay tons of cash to lawyers!) They only reimburse 80% of the coverage total after you have been found not guilty. So you have no money after bail (which will probably eat up the 20% of coverage they do pay upfront) to cover your defense costs. THEREFORE you can’t afford a great lawyer and this further jeapordizes getting your reimbursement as you get zip if found guilty which is more likely to happen with a mediocre defense team.

    USCCA Shield pays the coverage upfront and is also backed by a top rated insurance carrier. This makes all the difference and is exactly why I cancelled Lockton/Second Call (Now NRA Carry Guard).

    AND REGARDING THE NRA BLOCKING USCCA FROM THE MEETING… NRA is a non-profit member organization with a charter to defend 2A rights. Not a corporation trying to maximize profit and squash competition on ancillary profit based initiatives. STUPID MOVE.

    • Whetherman says:

      “NRA is a non-profit member organization with a charter to defend 2A rights. Not a corporation trying to maximize profit and squash competition…”

      I’ll apologize early if I sound preachy and fixated on this issue, but it suggests a phenomenon I have watched work on other organizations.

      An analogy or metaphor is, what is sometimes referred to as “prosperity theology.” In the worst case it reduces to, “no matter how scummy or Commandment-breaking what you do is, if it makes money for you, that is prima facie proof that God approves of what you are doing.”

      I have seen it work with small, single-issue political groups that evolved from a purist focus on their issues, to spending almost all their energy on fund raising, with the result being they took increasingly off-the-wall, sensationalist positions, and/or attacked some people unnecessarily, because that’s what brought in flurries of donations. More analogous to the USCCA scenario, they would eventually attack nominally allied groups in proportion to how much those groups competed for the single-issue dollar. But, that their positions became more and more divorced from reality called to question whether they were really trying to optimize their position for advancing their issues, or saw success at fund raising as being synonymous with advancing their issue. Invariably their mantras were some variation of, “we can’t do good works unless we have the money to do it, and the more money we make, the more good works we can do.” Which sounded plausible, except that it seemed that most of the money they raised was invested back into yet more fund raising.

      I’m not accusing the NRA of that, but I am saying it is a trap to consciously look out for. My degrees aren’t in business, but I am aware that every short-term, tactical financial success isn’t necessarily an indicator of a long term strategic strategy that will prove successful.

  10. Jeff Peters says:

    Insurance policies are filled with fine print that allows carriers to NOT pay. After reviewing all the small print and declarations it is clear USCCA has best coverage and DO pay legal defense fees AS THEY ARE INCURRED up to coverage amounts. A CRITICAL IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE.

    Why have this insurance if not to avoid the nightmare of having to outlay cash for bail, defense and finally, a liability settlement.

  11. Justsomeguy says:

    The NRA is a membership run non profit that supports the shooting sports, it is not a business that should be competing with companies that are friendly to our cause. I’m not a fan and will vote against board members that support this idea.

  12. dustydog says:

    I predict the lefties setting NRA up – buying a scumbag Carry Guard, waiting until he does scumbag stuff, and then howling because NRA either did or didn’t cut him loose.

  13. ItsJustBill says:

    I’m a Patron Life NRA member. I support the NRA even when they do something I don’t particularity like, or align themselves with someone I think is a fool. In my humble opinion they are still our best champion against the anti gun forces. … That being said, the way I see this “Carry Guard” is that they have taken the money that I’ve “donated” to them to fight for 2nd amendment issues, and used it to start a business that they will charge NRA members to use. … Somehow, that just does not seem right to me.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. SayUncle » Gun Insurance Fight - […] What if George Zimmerman had Carry Guard? […]
top