A not-so-nice reaction to the NRA

[Seaspriter]

When you fight city hall, they sometimes do that just to let you know who is really the boss.

This is really an important issue. When you fight any war, you must play the chess game many moves in advance to know how you will win before your first salvo. The problem with fighting government is they always have a long term strategy to avoid antagonistic precedents, and they have very deep pockets to keep lawyers employed.

In hindsight, the best strategy would probably be to hire a lawyer to file for a jury trial, (which might cause government to settle out of court), then represent yourself in trial, claiming that there was no preponderance of evidence that could tie you to the fire, and that this is a classic David and Goliath case (juries don't like government Goliaths).

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[boltaction]

I think the OP's point is that the range had NRA insurance, correct? Since the fire was started behind the range, possibly from shots fired by someone legally using the range, I would have thought it would be the range's responsibility to make sure they had fire clearance behind, and the issue would indeed be in the interest of the range to sort out. By not supporting this owner, the range (and by default the NRA who the range has insurance with) has now allowed a precedent to be set wherein the range (and anyone on it) can be blamed and held accountable for any fires starting downrange.

Having said that, some of the other posters are correct too--what the NRA would cover or would not cover would be determined by the type and terms of the insurance the range has with them, and the type and terms of the insurance provided to members. I live in Canada, and have some insurance coverage through the wildlife federation, but I am not at all certain that it would extend to covering issues relating to property damage possibly caused by my firearms or their use. Probably not. So, there was a fire behind this range, which may or may not have been caused by the OP's spent bullet (seems highly unlikely if not tracer) or perhaps sparks from a steel gong (also seems unlikely if it was outside the range berm). The OP's guilt or involvement in the fire was never proven or indeed provable, so should have been fought at the time. Whether that should have been fought by the range or by the OP is a matter of debate--I would say the range since it affects future use of the range by all shooters. Governments and government departments will ALWAYS try to blame someone, just like insurance companies will ALWAYS deny a claim just to see if they can get away with it. Usually, if they are challenged (prove it was started by a bullet, prove it was my bullet--too bad, so sad, you can't) they back down pretty damn quick.

IMO, the range itself is not worth going to if the manager doesn't know what his insurance covers and what it doesn't, and if the management is going to let the feds walk all over a legitimate user. If the story is indeed as it is set down, then the range has just set itself and its membership up for serious troubles in the future. Not sure whether or not the NRA should have been involved or not. Just my two cents' worth.

Ed

[RASelkirk]

...The problem with fighting government is they always have a long term strategy to avoid antagonistic precedents, and they have very deep pockets to keep lawyers employed...

And let us all consider who keeps those pockets filled!

Russ

[Vincent]

I am not sure exactly what your beef is. You had insurance that would cover the bill but you wanted the NRA to come in and spend g-d knows how much money to defend you for free on an issue that had nothing to do with the NRA's purpose.

He said the range is insured by the NRA.

There is a range near me that requires NRA membership, supposedly because they are insured by the NRA. That leads people to believe they are covered by the NRA insurance.