American Legion Bans Guns

And they base their rates on the answers to such questions. An insurance company may not require a business to have sprinklers... but if it makes a major difference to the premium, it can come to the same thing. If a "no guns" sign lowered the rate for liability insurance, a business, or other organization, might need to post one, especially if it were struggling in the current economy.
Click to expand...
I'll give a technical explanation about that first sentence I am quoting Vanya. Rates for all classes of commercial insurance (in this case talking General Liability or Casualty) all start out the same, all set in place by actuaries who work for the federal govt, and they calculate the base rates by determining overall losses paid out. Each company will then look at business they have written for each class and calculate their own loss ratios and determine a Loss Cost Multiplier that they believe they need to apply to the base rates in order to cover potential losses. That LCM can vary between each state, and they must file it with each states Division of Insurance. They also file justification for the ability to apply debits or credits, as well as possible modifications that may apply for one particular company. (Example, AIG has a plethora of companies they write business through, Alaska has at least four companies from AIG, they don't all have the same LCMs, and they dont have the same company mod factors either. On one end of the spectrum, a policy might be placed with their company that has a 15% company mod credit, and may have up to 25% credits applied, or they could be on the other end with 15% company mod debit, and another 25% debit applied. So, in this example, an insured could have premiums 40% up or down from the base rates.)
The DOI scrutinizes these filings because their interest is not to help the insurers, but to protect the insureds. Once the company has their filings approved they then get to underwriting. Which is what my office does for companys: Underwrite on their behalf.

The insurance market goes through cycles that take years to reach the peak at either end. Referred to as a 'hard' or 'soft' market. Currently the market has bottomed out and has been about as soft as it could get. Market goes 'soft' when companies compete for the business and start lowering their LCMs or simply approve the use of the credits they filed for. Companies that fail to compete lose much of their customer base to competitors. for the next several years insurance rates will rise as companies file for higher rates/debits. It will reach a peak and then little by little, in an effort to draw more business carriers will start filing for lower rates.

The DOI is supposed to keep the carriers in check, and ensure that they are not gouging the marketplace.

OK back to the OP storyline here....
that sign prohibiting guns, probably is unknown to the ALs insurance company. I highly doubt they are getting lower rates just by posting that sign.
 
Why are all these "Gun free zones" advertising themselves? I see no advantage to having "gun free zones" when the gun owners are all legal. Do they expect to get more business because they are "gun free?" I still don't understand the logic or the reason for these "Gun ban zones" and why a business would want to advertise that no one on the premises is carrying a firearm. Seems like it'd be an easy target for criminals.

The only explanation I can think of, is that the business' create the illusion of safety, by having "no guns." Because "Guns are dangerous and kill people." So if there are none you're safe right? :rolleyes: It's got to be some sort of mediocre marketing scheme or something.
 
the illusion of safety
Click to expand...
Precisely. In fact the example I used when talking to the OSHA speaker was about the National Guard being posted around airports post 9/11 with unloaded rifles. The average person felt safer with the presence of a uniformed person securing the premise that appeared to be armed.
 
What veterans fought (fight) for is freedom. Freedom includes being able to deny access to private property for any reason not specifically part of a "protected class".
Click to expand...

I hate that argument. It implies that private vs public property is binary, that if some land or property isn't literally owned by the public then the owners should have the same power over visitors whether it's a private domicile, or an open undeveloped field (on private land), or a typical open-to-the-public store, or something in-between like the American Legion or Sam's Club.

I don't think that's the right way to look at the question of private property rights. I think even membership-only clubs shouldn't have unilateral power to prohibit responsible concealed firearm carry, any more than they should be able to dictate what color underwear should be.
 
Disagree totally, private property is PRIVATE, meaning they can refuse or allow whatever they want (within any constraints of the law).

Don't like their rules? Simple, go to the VFW or AmVets instead. Vote with your feet and wallet. I refused to join a social club (Moose) because they allowed smoking in the place and, being an ex-smoker, I can't STAND the smell, so I left and never went back. Their house, their rules - what is so hard to understand?
 
BigD in FL said:
Disagree totally, private property is PRIVATE, meaning they can refuse or allow whatever they want (within any constraints of the law).
Click to expand...

See, it's that last part you wrote... The exceptions to private property, such as any property that invites and/or allows the general public. You are then under a whole slew of governmental regulations.

And no, such a property does not have to be a business, only that the general public may, at times, be invited. Should I mention the various zoning regulations? Fire regulations? Occupancy requirements? And on and on....

PRIVATE property is only as private as regulations allow.
 
Tyme said:
I hate that argument. It implies that private vs public property is binary, that if some land or property isn't literally owned by the public then the owners should have the same power over visitors whether it's a private domicile, or an open undeveloped field (on private land), or a typical open-to-the-public store, or something in-between like the American Legion or Sam's Club.

I don't think that's the right way to look at the question of private property rights. I think even membership-only clubs shouldn't have unilateral power to prohibit responsible concealed firearm carry, any more than they should be able to dictate what color underwear should be.
Click to expand...


Actually, I think they should be able to dictate what color underwear your wear. Why not?

I should be able to hang a sign that says "We do not serve purple haired people, those with mustaches, anyone who wears tighy-whiteys or anyone who wears a belt." (Checking to see if you ARE wearing tighy-whiteys is another thing.)

If people don't like it, they can open their own bar. If they can't afford to open their own bar, they don't need to go to a bar. It's not a basic human right to go to a bar (or any other business). Self defense is a basic right. I can't prohibit self defense. I can prohibit swords, knives, mace.... etc. etc.... guns... It's private property. If I don't want it here, you can't bring it.


Whether or not it's wise to do it is another question.

Purple haired people also have the right to be mad at me and go somewhere else or picket and boycott or open a pizza shop with a sign that says "No one who goes to Peetza's Pizza Place is allowed here."

Let the market sort it out.
 
We have age discrimination here in FL all over the state. 55+ communities do not allow anyone under that age to own property there - private community. Sorry, it is still their house their rules. Just like a restaurant that says no shoes, no shirt, no service, C-stores that say no hoodies or no more than 3 students at a time, night clubs that do not allow single men in, and on and on. It happens all over the place, it is their right, especially as a private organization to allow or disallow whatever and whomever they want. Not a Catholic? Good luck joining something like the KoC.

It is simple, either ask them to change or go somewhere else where your views and actions are wanted/appreciated.

I wouldn't want to force my way into an organization via threat of lawsuit or whatever - what type of friends do you think you will make?
 
Another self-inflicted wound

The American Legion is on the endangered species list as it struggles to remain relevant. Declining membership, apathy, financial problems and the failure to attract the Iraq/Afghan vets to it's ranks are among the more significant issues the organization faces.

I am not sure that banning guns from Legion Halls well prove to be a viable solution to any of the problems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top