NRA Offers "Stand Your Ground" Insurance

How low can the National Rifle Association (NRA) sink?

As if the “Stand Your Ground” laws weren’t already bad enough, now it turns out that the National Rifle Association (NRA) will protect you if you happen to kill someone who looks like maybe he or she might be a criminal.

That’s right. At a time when one person dies every minute as a result of armed violence, the NRA is offering insurance for any of its members who just happen to murder someone.

Here’s how it works, as reported by Think Progress:

The insurance — technically endorsed by the NRA and administered by Lockton Affinity exclusively for NRA members — is available as a rider to the “excess personal liability” plan. Here’s how the website advertises the added coverage for self-defense (emphasis in the original):

What’s Covered:
• Provides coverage up to the limit selected for criminal and civil defense costs.
• Cost of civil suit defense is provided in addition to the limit of liability for bodily injury and property damage.
• Criminal Defense Reimbursement is provided for alleged criminal actions involving self-defense when you are acquitted of such criminal charges or the charges are dropped.

The basic liability plan costs either $47 or $67 annually, for coverage up to $100,000 or $250,000, respectively. Though the coverage amounts stay the same, a policy holder can add the self-defense insurance by paying $118 or $165 for the lesser coverage, or between $187 and $254 for the larger plan. (The discrepancies are due to the different prices for coverage on two different webpages from the insurer.)

The NRA pushed its members in 2005 to support Florida’s controversial “stand your ground” law — an exemption from arrest or prosecution in shootings where the police think the act was in self defense. When the law got bad press after George Zimmerman shot and killed Florida teenager Trayvon Martin, the NRA refused to back down, continuing to support the law’s passage in other states.

Click here to see the excellent Matt Bors’ cartoon skewering the insurance program.

And then ask yourself, “Can the NRA sink any lower than this?”

Trayvon Martin: What Does The Rest Of The World Think?

Shellie Zimmerman Arrested For Perjury

Photo Credit: bobcrowe_com

quick poll

vote now!

Loading poll...

no!
leaning no
leaning yes
yes!

no!
leaning no
leaning yes
yes!

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Lynn D.

3:00AM PST on Nov 30, 2012

Thanks for sharing with us!

November 30
send a green star

Dale O.

8:23AM PDT on Jul 31, 2012

When one thinks that one has heard almost everything...something else comes up and tops everything!

A nasty concept if I ever heard one.

And on the other extreme is the eye for an eye hoping others will shoot each other, sounds like an NRA chant...

July 31
send a green star

Kevin B.

5:03AM PDT on Jun 19, 2012

Billie-You don't know what you are talking about.

June 19
send a green star

Billie C.

10:11PM PDT on Jun 18, 2012

before stand your ground if you shot somebody breaking into your house and he fell outside you would be charged with murder. you had to either wait for him to get all the way in or drag his dumb ass body back inside. once the window is broken or the door kicked you should be able to shoot first and ask questions later, not wait for them to get all the way in and they shoot first.
when all the criminals lose their guns i'll consider losing mine. until then the first person that breaks into my house gets blown away.

June 18
send a green star

10:03PM PDT on Jun 18, 2012

David-Oh I just wanted to add that on no less than two separate occasions my being armed saved my life, so that kind of goes into the mix of my feelings and beliefs on gun ownership.

10:01PM PDT on Jun 18, 2012

See David there you go overstating things. Access to firearms is definitely a reason why our homicide rates are so high and Britain's are so low. Look I am not giving up my guns and to some degree I share the myth that my gun ultimately protects my rights as a citizen, although I realize that this is not the late 18th century and my M1 carbine is not going to protect me like the Pennsylvania Long Rifles and British Land Muskets protected out founding fathers.

I am an intelligent gun owner in the sense that I know guns are dangerous and take an incredibly toll on human society but I am not willing to give up the loaded .357 Taurus, Colt .38, or Glock 9mm that I keep in my top left desk drawer. However I can watch "Bowling for Columbine' and realize that the film contains a whole lot of truth. Maybe if they could get all the guns away from the bad guys I would be willing to give mine up (maybe).

I love and enjoy my guns. I was raised with them, used them in all shapes and sizes during my years of military service, and always viewed them as dangerous but useful tools. However I also view them as, at best, a necessary evil and know the price we pay for gun ownership in this country.

8:48PM PDT on Jun 18, 2012

David F.-As a lifelong gun owner could I ask that you please stop speaking for gun owners. I mean really you are going to compare Switzerland, where every adult male is a trained member of the armed forces in a very tiny country to the United States or even Great Britain? There are so many demographical and cultural differences that such a comparison is ridiculous and most of their firearms are part of the "well organized militia" that our Constitution talks about but no longer exists.

I believe in the right to bear arms and I am not giving up my guns, but even I know that if every gun in America disappeared tomorrow this would be a better and safer country. I am just not willing to give up mine until everyone else had. Folks there are responsible gun owners out here and we are not all NRA trolls.

Duane B.

3:21PM PDT on Jun 17, 2012

Thank you for sharing.

June 17
send a green star

11:20AM PDT on Jun 17, 2012

Past Member-Self defense laws and the "castle doctrine" have been a part of Naglo-American law for well over 500 years. Self defense laws were not broken and did not need "fixing." Under jU.S. self-defense laws a person could use deadly force to protect themself or another under circumstance when a reasonable person would believe that they were threatened with death or serious bodily injury. In some cases there was a duty to retreat if one could do so in complete safety. The law gave even greater leeway to a preson defending one's home. There was absolutely no duty of retreat and even greater leeway in home defense (one could assume that anyone breaking into your home was threatening death or serious bodily injury. No one was going to jail for defending themselves.

The new so-called "stand your ground laws" serve no purpose other than to promote violence in non-deadly situations. The law worked fine before hand and did not need fixing or changing. Now idiots are killing innocent people over minor disputes and claiming "self defense."

Past Member .

10:47AM PDT on Jun 17, 2012

Stand your ground laws were designed to protect people protecting their homes & families. The law has been warped & used wrongly. Before these laws we saw people going to jail for shooting burglars, rapists & armed intruders. It is hard to understand but the laws were designed so that if someone comes into my home with a weapon & tries to steal or hurt me then I can shoot them & not be punished for defending my home & family. Unfortunately the laws have been twisted & now are being used to defend people shooting unprovoked & unarmed civilians.