I would tend to agree and I'm in no way apologizing for the bank because I disapprove of this for whatever the reason, but coverage from the PLCAA is only good when the case has been thrown out or you've been declared not guilty. You are still drug into the case and still spent the money to defend yourself and the bank made the decision that they don't make enough off this segment to bother. No ambulance chaser is going to ignore deep pockets just because the business might be covered by PLCAA which was written to cover manufacturers and dealers. I believe it is silent as to bankers. The announcement was made during a business television interview and the actual implementation of this has not been determined and it won't affect current lending agreements. So then, is it just a PR announcement without real action? We both may be right, It is about risk negation and it is just silly liberal virtue signaling.BenderRodriguez said:
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act should already have them covered on that front. This isn't about risk negation, just more silly liberal virtue signaling.
My wife is pretty high up on the risk side of the bank and while certainly not a decider, risk negation was the conversation she had about it. I'll note that she's a shooter, as is everyone in our family, and we've had as many unfortunate canoe accidents as many on this board.