USAA and 30.06

[Kirk]

CHL is not the only thing they oppose

USAA and Other Opponents to Parking Lot bill https://www.tsra.com/index.php?option=c ... Itemid=113" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Again Senator Hegar’s senate version passed in the Texas Senate and moved on to House Public Safety with the same language as before including that added for USAA. USAA’s lobbyist testified against the bill, saying they had sold the land for the “alternative parking lot" and it would be a financial hardship to ask them to buy more."

[Katygunnut]

CHL is not the only thing they oppose

USAA and Other Opponents to Parking Lot bill https://www.tsra.com/index.php?option=c ... Itemid=113" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Again Senator Hegar’s senate version passed in the Texas Senate and moved on to House Public Safety with the same language as before including that added for USAA. USAA’s lobbyist testified against the bill, saying they had sold the land for the “alternative parking lot" and it would be a financial hardship to ask them to buy more."

The irony here is amazing.

USAA's Board is comprised of military veterans. Their customer base is comprised of active duty military and veterans. All of these folks (those running the company and their customers) swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. And yet the company has an apparent business objective of subverting the Constitution.

Do we know whether they oppose the entire Constitution, or are they just against certain parts?

[ScottDLS]

CHL is not the only thing they oppose

USAA and Other Opponents to Parking Lot bill https://www.tsra.com/index.php?option=c ... Itemid=113" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Again Senator Hegar’s senate version passed in the Texas Senate and moved on to House Public Safety with the same language as before including that added for USAA. USAA’s lobbyist testified against the bill, saying they had sold the land for the “alternative parking lot" and it would be a financial hardship to ask them to buy more."

The irony here is amazing.

USAA's Board is comprised of military veterans. Their customer base is comprised of active duty military and veterans. All of these folks (those running the company and their customers) swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. And yet the company has an apparent business objective of subverting the Constitution.

Do we know whether they oppose the entire Constitution, or are they just against certain parts?

I find that the US military has a general "anti-gun" bent. Witness their prohibition on carrying on bases...all Alaska stationed military prohibited by regulation from carrying, etc. So USAA management, overwhelmingly made up of former military personnel, has the typical "big brother", We know what's better for you than you do... attitude so prevalent in the military.

I say this as a member (since 1987) and a former officer. My experience is that the US military has a larger percentage of big government liberals than the US population at large.

[QB]

USAA wrote: "Our policy was put in place as a matter of consistency with the policy of all our campuses and financial services centers. We take our responsibility to all who enter our establishments seriously and want to minimize the risks associated with the presence of weapons in our business environment.

We value your membership with USAA, and your feedback is well taken."

(1) so they are saying that their policy was put in place to be consistent???? Yet they go on to say they "want to minimize the risks associated with the presence of weapons"? Well, to put a policy in place to "be consistent" with other locations is ridiculous. And has anyone asked them just what "risks" CHL holders present? They MUST be referring to CHL holders because we all know that criminals don't recognize their stupid signs. So again, WHAT RISKS do CHL holders present?

(2) and to end with a statement that your "feedback is well taken"............what the heck does that mean? Does it mean that they aren't upset that they got the letter? "Well taken"???? HUH????

And another response posted said something to the effect that they are sorry they can't meet his needs but hope he'll still do business with them. I've gotten that response from SEVERAL places.......seems to be "the phrase" to use. There are customer service people just opening mail and sending a canned response something to the effect of "thanks for your feedback, we don't care about it, apologize for not meeting your needs but hope you'll still do business with us"!!!!!!!

It's all INSULTING!!!!!!!!!

[Barbi Q]

They used to have good rates but a few years ago, their subpar interest rate on savings account was enough to get us to bank somewhere else.

[Gunner21]

I'm surprised because USAA has really good firearm coverage included standard in their homeowner policy. Maybe the insurance people are different than the banker types.

From my experience the Insurance people are DEFINITELY different than the bank types.

[b322da]

I'm surprised because USAA has really good firearm coverage included standard in their homeowner policy. Maybe the insurance people are different than the banker types.

From my experience the Insurance people are DEFINITELY different than the bank types.

I have been with USAA for more than 50 years, and there is no question but that you are absolutely correct.

Someday when you are "an old and valued customer whose business is appreciated" and you wish to apply for a home mortgage loan, go through the paperwork with USAA at their website, and then get yourself down to your reputable mortgage broker which has the same interest rate or better. You, I suspect, will see the difference.

On the other hand, my USAA insurance coverage, of all kinds, can only be pried out of my cold, dead hands.

Elmo

[Gunner21]

I'm surprised because USAA has really good firearm coverage included standard in their homeowner policy. Maybe the insurance people are different than the banker types.

From my experience the Insurance people are DEFINITELY different than the bank types.

I have been with USAA for more than 50 years, and there is no question but that you are absolutely correct.

Someday when you are "an old and valued customer whose business is appreciated" and you wish to apply for a home mortgage loan, go through the paperwork with USAA at their website, and then get yourself down to your reputable mortgage broker which has the same interest rate or better. You, I suspect, will see the difference.

On the other hand, my USAA insurance coverage, of all kinds, can only be pried out of my cold, dead hands.

Elmo

pfft it was the Insurance Branch that got my car loan refinanced. USAA Bank irritated me off enough that I changed insurance. Insurance Manager called Bank. Bank called me and I dealt with the Bank Manager. Bottom line... I win.

[G26ster]

I've been with USAA for 44 years. Insurance and CC only. No real banking. I have noticed, of late, that the customer service (via phone) has declined. It used to be that claims specialists knew what was what,and things were handled quickly and easily. Today I called about a possible slab leak from the water heater to the kitchen sink (hot kitchen floor). The person I spoke to couldn't even tell me if I was covered or not. They also said, "how do you know you have damage? What? Basically I was told I "might" call a plumber and get an estimate, and once I received the estimate, they would tell me IF I was covered or not, and for what. That's not what I would call the USAA service of the past.

That said, it would be hard to switch insurance and lose out on their rates and dividends each year. But if this issue I'm dealing with now doesn't go well, I might consider it. My SIL in San Diego had the same problem, and her insurance company sent a slab leak specialist to her home, coordinated the repairs, and covered everything (except deductible I would guess). Now I have to search for a slab leak specialist in the DFW area, and hope I don't get one that will be at odds with USAA over repairs.

[jimlongley]

I was, briefly, a member of USAA in the early 70s, right after I got off active duty. My late wife, who was an insurance agent herself, read some of their literature and talked me into rescinding my membership and I haven't regretted it until now. Now my only regret is that I did not "know my enemy" and keep track of them and their insidious campaign against legal gun possession. They can be assured that I will never even consider doing business with them at any time in the future too, even if they do change their public policy, as I do not think they will ever really change.

[b322da]

I was, briefly, a member of USAA in the early 70s, right after I got off active duty. My late wife, who was an insurance agent herself, read some of their literature and talked me into rescinding my membership and I haven't regretted it until now. Now my only regret is that I did not "know my enemy" and keep track of them and their insidious campaign against legal gun possession. They can be assured that I will never even consider doing business with them at any time in the future too, even if they do change their public policy, as I do not think they will ever really change.

In my opinion this discussion, in general, is really wandering off into never-never land, Jim. I say this just after your post not because you are alone, but that you repeat a common theme of this thread, and it may just be the use of loose language.

Neither USAA nor any other 30.06 poster is, according to my reasoning, insidiously campaigning against "legal" gun possession. Does that proper 30.06 sign mean that a CHL-licensee is guilty of illegally carrying a concealed handgun if she ignores the sign? As we all know so well, it only means that if one enters ignoring the sign, if correctly worded, shaped and posted, she would be trespassing. Is she not still legally carrying the handgun? Could she be arrested for illegally carrying a handgun? If USAA is "insidiously campaigning against legal gun possession" I could be accused of insidiously campaigning against legal gun possession if I courteously tell a visitor to my home that my home is not open to anyone carrying a handgun, whether CHL-licensed, or not, and she may not enter if she is carrying a handgun.

With the greatest of respect for you and your invariably intelligent well-reasoned postings here, Jim, I feel that it is simply not right, once again in my personal opinion, to assume that my having said this to a visitor is because I am "insidiously campaigning against legal gun possession." Nothing could be more untrue of this particular NRA member, CHL-licensee from the very beginning, and tireless advocate of the 2nd Amendment.

I cannot close without observing that absent the wide circulation given on this forum, and others similarly oriented, to USAA's sign on its premises, one, my being one of them, would not even know of USAA's policy on this, unless they visited the offices, which gives me a serious question as to whether USAA is being "insiduous."

Elmo

[Kirk]

I've been with USAA for 44 years. Insurance and CC only. No real banking. I have noticed, of late, that the customer service (via phone) has declined. It used to be that claims specialists knew what was what,and things were handled quickly and easily. Today I called about a possible slab leak from the water heater to the kitchen sink (hot kitchen floor). The person I spoke to couldn't even tell me if I was covered or not. They also said, "how do you know you have damage? What? Basically I was told I "might" call a plumber and get an estimate, and once I received the estimate, they would tell me IF I was covered or not, and for what. That's not what I would call the USAA service of the past..

We have had USAA on and off over the last 20 year (Overseas I had a different insurer) with the longest being 11 years here in Houston. My son was in an accident over the weekend and when I call USAA I wanted to know if I was covered since he was driving his girl friend's car. I was told to call back Monday or Tuesday and I could find out then. He then told me that I needed to answer a list of questions that would take 15 to 20 minutes. I explained if he couldn't tell if I was covered I didn't have time to answer a bunch of questions and hung up. I ended up paying out of my pocket for the damages.

Tell me again why I have insurance??

[Katygunnut]

I was, briefly, a member of USAA in the early 70s, right after I got off active duty. My late wife, who was an insurance agent herself, read some of their literature and talked me into rescinding my membership and I haven't regretted it until now. Now my only regret is that I did not "know my enemy" and keep track of them and their insidious campaign against legal gun possession. They can be assured that I will never even consider doing business with them at any time in the future too, even if they do change their public policy, as I do not think they will ever really change.

In my opinion this discussion, in general, is really wandering off into never-never land, Jim. I say this just after your post not because you are alone, but that you repeat a common theme of this thread, and it may just be the use of loose language.

Neither USAA nor any other 30.06 poster is, according to my reasoning, insidiously campaigning against "legal" gun possession. Does that proper 30.06 sign mean that a CHL-licensee is guilty of illegally carrying a concealed handgun if she ignores the sign? As we all know so well, it only means that if one enters ignoring the sign, if correctly worded, shaped and posted, she would be trespassing. Is she not still legally carrying the handgun? Could she be arrested for illegally carrying a handgun? If USAA is "insidiously campaigning against legal gun possession" I could be accused of insidiously campaigning against legal gun possession if I courteously tell a visitor to my home that my home is not open to anyone carrying a handgun, whether CHL-licensed, or not, and she may not enter if she is carrying a handgun.

With the greatest of respect for you and your invariably intelligent well-reasoned postings here, Jim, I feel that it is simply not right, once again in my personal opinion, to assume that my having said this to a visitor is because I am "insidiously campaigning against legal gun possession." Nothing could be more untrue of this particular NRA member, CHL-licensee from the very beginning, and tireless advocate of the 2nd Amendment.

I cannot close without observing that absent the wide circulation given on this forum, and others similarly oriented, to USAA's sign on its premises, one, my being one of them, would not even know of USAA's policy on this, unless they visited the offices, which gives me a serious question as to whether USAA is being "insiduous."

Elmo

Elmo,

Please allow me to respond to your points, as I have made a similar post to those that you reference. I respect your opinion on this, but I for one consider this situation more egregious than your run of the mill 30.06 posting.

The US Constitution protects certain individual rights from government infringement. These include the right to free speech, free assembly, protection against unreasonable search and seizure, and the right to keep and bear arms. When businesses or individuals restrict these rights, they are not technically violating the Constitution because that document does not place burdens upon them in this area. However, I believe it is entirely accurate to say that someone who unreasonably restricts free speech, free assembly, RKBA, or conducts unreasonable searches and seizures, is acting in a manner that is inconsistent with the US Constitution. When this is done by a UK citizen, as in the case of Jarrods and Kay Jewelers (parent company is based in the UK), it is understandable that they would feel no compulsion to live up to the ideals espoused in America's core founding legal document. Foreigners have a limited moral obligation to respect our ideals and values, and I can give them somewhat of a pass for doing anything they want within relevant laws, without regard to the higher principles embodied in the Constitution.

However, I think it is a MUCH different scenario when individuals who pledged their lives to the protection of the rights embodied in the Constitution blatently restrict those rights for premises and people under their control. I think it is sad that those individuals who at one point in their lives were willing to die so that these rights would be preserved are now acting in a manner that is totally inconsistent with the pledge that they had previously made. Personally, I was released from active duty in 1991, and I have had no formal, legal obligation to uphold the constitution since 1995. However, I believe that I will always have a moral obligation to uphold the rights embodied in that document. For me, there is no time limit on the promise that I made before God when I enlisted.

[b322da]

I not only understand where you are coming from, Katygunnut, but let me assure you that I sympathize. I, too, wore a uniform for a whole lot of years, and I took the same oath -- several times. You are also correct when you imply, if not assert, that I am talking strictly the law as it currently stands, and not morality. The law is not always moral. Was it Jack Kennedy who said "Life is not always fair?" I can never remember who. I do remember that it was Charles Dickens who said, "The law is a ass." [Mod: he was talking about an animal, not human anatomy].

There are those, when discussing the subjects we discuss here, who will say, with some truth, that "a right is a right only after the Supreme Court of the United States says it is."

My position, I will admit, is that we should all take care in stating that something is a "right," or a "Constitutional right," as being a matter of fact, when what we really mean is that in our opinion it is a right, but the Court has not yet spoken on this issue, and the other two branches of the federal government have made no decree to that effect. I am so afraid that by not recognizing the difference we may mislead others to their sorrow.

Again, I understand your position, and I hope you understand mine.

Most respectfully,

Elmo

[Katygunnut]

I not only understand where you are coming from, Katygunnut, but let me assure you that I sympathize. I, too, wore a uniform for a whole lot of years, and I took the same oath -- several times. You are also correct when you imply, if not assert, that I am talking strictly the law as it currently stands, and not morality. The law is not always moral. Was it Jack Kennedy who said "Life is not always fair?" I can never remember who. I do remember that it was Charles Dickens who said, "The law is a ass." [Mod: he was talking about an animal, not human anatomy].

There are those, when discussing the subjects we discuss here, who will say, with some truth, that "a right is a right only after the Supreme Court of the United States says it is."

My position, I will admit, is that we should all take care in stating that something is a "right," or a "Constitutional right," as being a matter of fact, when what we really mean is that in our opinion it is a right, but the Court has not yet spoken on this issue, and the other two branches of the federal government have made no decree to that effect. I am so afraid that by not recognizing the difference we may mislead others to their sorrow.

Again, I understand your position, and I hope you understand mine.

Most respectfully,

Elmo

I definitely do understand your position.

The issue of 30.06 is challenging for me in general, because there are two competing rights at play. A business owner has private property rights to dictate what people can and cannot do on their property (within reason). An individual also has certain rights including the right to keep and bear arms. My personal opinion is that this right of the individual should trump in cases where a business owner has opened their establishment to the general public (not a closed membership, etc). This is my personal opinion and is not how the laws are currently set up. It is funny to me that we as a society have chosen to protect certain individual rights over the business owners private property rights (such as the right against racial discrimination), but we do not take the same stand in the protection of fundamental individual rights (SCOTUS wording there) like the RKBA.

As much as I disagree, the law is the law until or unless we change it. The people who run USAA can legally infringe upon my right to keep and bear arms while I am on their property. I just find it distressing that career military men and women, like those who run this company, would decide to take advantage of their legal ability to do this. To me, that is disgraceful.