Cuomo responds after NRA says it may cease to exist: 'Too bad'



I am not sure where the news is, so someone doesn’t like the NRA.


Is there something controversial about him saying this? :neutral_face:


The news is the Governor of New York weaponizing state agencies to silence his political opponents.


Cuomo’s typical fascistic tactics.


I am sure they wouldn’t care if Governor Cuomo ceased to exist either. The politician, not the man. He’s a fool and an embarrassment for Catholics everywhere, after all, just like his baby brother.


If I understand part of the issue, the NRA was offering an insurance product in NY that was not allowed by the NY insurance regulators. It seems to me that the NRA is asking for special treatment, than blaming the government for their problems when they don’t get the special treatment.


The “Carry Guard” insurance insures against liability in the case of a self defense shooting. If you shoot someone who broke into your home, for example, you could be subject to civil lawsuits from the criminal’s family or even criminal prosecution. Carry Guard then provides legal representation for the shooter in such cases and may pay off in a civil lawsuit. I can’t see why such a product would be illegal given that firearm ownership and their use in self defense is. In any case, Cuomo is going beyond that and actually lobbying other states to go after the NRA as well.


New York’s Andrew Cuomo is engaging in a deliberate campaign to use state power to drive the NRA out of business. It’s using a combination of consent decrees and warning letters directed at financial institutions to coerce them into cutting of business relationships with the NRA.


The previous Mayor of New York City took a similar approach as the governor.


Won’t their homeowners policy cover it?


I can well imagine many insurers aren’t that keen to insure this sort of thing, which is why this particular product exists at all. One of the questions I get asked every year at renewal is whether I have any firearms on the premises


You’re not always at home when you need a firearm for self defense.


It also insures against liability in the case of intentional wrong-doing. The policy pays off even in that case, right?


I don’t know that any insurance covers against liability in case of intentional wrong doing, but if you shoot someone in what you claim is self defense, and a prosecutor decides to charge you, the policy would cover legal fees associated with the trial, but lots of “umbrella” policies do that, so I don’t see how it would be illegal. I remember reading something about the Harvey Weinstein case where he filed a claim under his umbrella policy for his legal bills, though there was some pushback from the insurance company, so I don’t know what the ultimate resolution was…


Imagine the outrage if Trump went after the ACLU or NAACP. It would dominate the news cycle for weeks, but the governor of New York going after a conservative civil rights group…crickets.


Part of the problem is that this is not an issue that affects most Americans. This is a New York issue, affecting New Yorkers. It is their problem.


so you would not care if Texas went after the ACLU or NAACP because it would be a Texas issue affecting Texans?


Exactly. Why would I think otherwise? Of course, I would want the free speech rights of the NRA and the NAACP be protected in all states, but when it comes to business regulations, should other states force Texas to follow particular rules?


I would like to think you would care because the State is using those regulations to threaten businesses who freely chose to engage with an orginization who engages in constutionally protected advocacy.:man_shrugging:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit