A not-so-nice reaction to the NRA

[Frederick303]

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.



The NRA only gets involved in cases that will establish precedence and or have a potential for personal injustice affects 1) firearms ownership, 2) carrying/transporting firearms 3) self-defense, 4)hunting rights, 5) range retention. 6) import laws, 7) ammunition restrictions. In your case the issue was a civil fine which would be accessed due to supposed negligence, related to starting a fire on government land. None of the above issues were in play, it had no relevance to the NRA's purpose of defending firearms use and ownership rights.

You did not go retain a lawyer... you could have tried that. In cases over 20 dollars you can demand a trial by jury. You could have made them prove it was your round, prove in some way your actions were negligent....etc. Of course it would have cost you money. Why do you expect the NRA to cover it? In any case your congressman cleared it up for you. seems like a decent outcome.

Don't get me wrong, but if the NRA got involved in every little action that anyone who was a member thought they had been wronged in they would be broke in a year. Second if they had got involved it might have gotten the range closed. When you fight city hall, they sometimes do that just to let you know who is really the boss.

[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).

[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.

[Frederick303]

So I get it the club supposedly had NRA insurance, based on the following:

" I called my insurance company and they said they would cover me...but I said no, I wanted to fight it... so I called the range master and he said they had NRA insurance... but he had no idea how to access it.... so I called the NRA... guess what, you can't get past the phone operator.. I complained so hard they finally let me talk to someone in Political Reform... she told me I was on my own..I could call advertisers in the magazine who might represent me but I would have to pay them...other than that they would not help me...at all... I quickly cancelled my NRA membership and said some things that I am not real proud of...."

In a 30 second on-line search I found.............the NRA insurance site. It was literally the first thing to come up when I searched " Gun Range Liability Insurance" using Bing. Here is the page for the NRA endorsed insurance:

Gun Club Insurance - Comprehensive Protection for your Club Members. Endorsed by the NRA


It would appear the NRA does not offer insurance themselves, but endorses insurance by outside companies. It seems the NRA effort is to provide a large enough pool of folks to make the insurance affordable, as if you were to go to a general carrier you might find that the liability costs to be much higher because they have an insufficient pool to spread the risks over. The insurance companies get a nice pool of clients, the NRA allows their members to get decent coverage at a low cost.

Notice on that page it is quite easy to file a claim. Of course you will require a active policy and it's number. Now if you have that policy number and company, you could go straight to the company. But the NRA makes it quite easy to file a claim directly from their site:

Request a Claim



Now the chap that started this post apparently decided after not getting a phone operator in the political department to have knowledge on insurance to give up after letting the big-bad-NRA know how upset he was. Well I very much doubt he had the policy number, which would have given him the means to contact the company and figure out how to file a claim even if he did not have a computer or know about the hidden mysteries of what is called a "SERACH ENGINE". Now pardon me if I fail to have a great deal of sympathy for his plight, as it seems he did not do any homework at all. He could have contacted someone in the club to get the policy number, if the idea of doing a search online never occurred. he did very little before coming on-line to besmirch the name of the NRA.


So again...I fail to see that the poster has any kind of an issue with the NRA. In fact he is very lucky he was not subject to a lot more harassment by the BLM, based on the story below:

The story behind the Oregon armed standoff

Fact is the fine was just the start of his legal issues. He could have faced criminal penalties as well, it seems the BLM is run by a bunch of power mad ---------. Fact is he should send his congressman a large package of something.

[Seaspriter]

The story behind the Oregon armed standoff. Fact is the fine was just the start of his legal issues. He could have faced criminal penalties as well, it seems the BLM is run by a bunch of power mad ---------

Frederick, you are correct: This is an unbelievably frightening story of the government gone mad. The idea of Justice, Fairness, and Sense of Proportion has totally out of line. In the Oregon situation, the idea of "Rule of Law" has become Draconian. Law without Compassion, Law without Proportion, Law without Sensibility is not what democracies or American ideals were designed for. How sad we so often come to a point when some government officials forgets their purpose is to serve the people, to preserve our civility, and to encourage people to do the right thing. At a point in US history when more than one male in one hundred is behind bars, we should be questioning the values we teach and profess to the younger generation.

[WarPig1976]

I still can't get over he admitted to it......

[jrapose]

No, I did not admit to anything.... it was years ago, so now I don't worry about saying that I probably did do it...but not then...

Plus I wanted to fight it, not pay it... I do not think I was doing anything wrong...I was at a sanctioned rifle range and not shooting tracers or anything illegal .... I kinda think the range was at fault by not having a clear range... it was a local range run by the local gun club and all members are supposed to be NRA members... I did not want my homeowners to just pay up as that would be admitting guilt...and I was not going to do that.....

I called the range and talked to the range master who was just an elected member of the club and had never thought about how to access the NRA insurance that he said they had.... again I really did not want them to pay.... I wanted to fight. I do think the NRA acted like jerks when I called them.

I dislike the NRA for how I was treated, and yes I do know they are our only defense against the gun lobby. What my point is...if you ever have a problem...don't expect anything from the NRA.

[Mike Haas]

No, I did not admit to anything.... it was years ago, so now I don't worry about saying that I probably did do it...but not then...

Plus I wanted to fight it, not pay it... I do not think I was doing anything wrong...I was at a sanctioned rifle range and not shooting tracers or anything illegal .... I kinda think the range was at fault by not having a clear range... it was a local range run by the local gun club and all members are supposed to be NRA members... I did not want my homeowners to just pay up as that would be admitting guilt...and I was not going to do that.....

I called the range and talked to the range master who was just an elected member of the club and had never thought about how to access the NRA insurance that he said they had.... again I really did not want them to pay.... I wanted to fight. I do think the NRA acted like jerks when I called them.

I dislike the NRA for how I was treated, and yes I do know they are our only defense against the gun lobby. What my point is...if you ever have a problem...don't expect anything from the NRA.

.................................................. .................................................. ...............................................

Holy Cow Man.. You didn't do your own due diligence to research the rifle ranges statement about insurance. Then you toss that into the fact that you called the NRA for assistance without anything factual that would enable them to possibly help you. Then you state.."I wanted to fight"

Now your badmouthing the NRA for your own in-emptitude.