TexasCHLforum.com

WildRose wrote: ↑Sun Sep 16, 2018 1:20 am True, but the company is national doing business in CA. States regulate all business operating within their borders, but "commerce between the states" is specifically what is protected so I think they have a good case using it.

Any commerce-clause challenge will have to deal with the federal McCarren-Fergusen Act, which exempts most state insurance regulation from commerce-clause challenges.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran–Ferguson_Act

WildRose wrote: ↑Thu Sep 13, 2018 11:27 am

Rob72 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 13, 2018 10:40 am It could possibly be challenged under the Commerce Clause, and/or possibly under the 14th Amendment, citing unfair/unreasonable burden resulting in loss of freedom or property in the absence of the insurance. But, who am I...

I think there's probably a strong commerce clause argument to go along with equal protection.

Insurance is regulated on a state-by-state basis, so a commerce-clause argument is unlikely to work. I used to know the historical basis for how insurance is regulated, but it escapes me now.

 "California has ordered the National Rifle Association to stop selling an insurance policy that covers legal costs for injury or damage from legally using a gun.

"The state Department of Insurance on Tuesday issued a cease and desist order saying that the NRA sold an unlicensed insurance product in the state.

"The order refers to the Self-Defense Insurance Policy included in the NRA's Carry Guard membership program. The policy covers some legal costs from criminal cases or lawsuits that arise when a gun is used for self-defense, recreation, hunting, or when a weapon fires accidentally."

https://www.wkyt.com/content/news/Calif ... 06431.html

Good grief.