Matthew Temkin
Member
True.People have the right to make poor choices. Not everyone survives the consequences of their choices.
True.People have the right to make poor choices. Not everyone survives the consequences of their choices.
Not entirely accurate. My state has a law prohibiting civil suit if you're acquitted on the criminal side.Although some people are confused about it, that's true in all states. Actually, a civil court does not assess guilt, it assesses civil liability and awards damages.
Possibly.
To your point, it’s possible I could live to regret the decision.. I just have yet to be convinced it’s likely.
That law does not stop anyone from suing you. All it does is give your attorney a reason to ask the judge to dismiss the suit. If the plaintiff's attorney can convince the judge the suit should proceed, it goes forward. Either way you are going to need an attorney.Not entirely accurate. My state has a law prohibiting civil suit if you're acquitted on the criminal side.
CCW’s only drawback is they won’t cover you if there is ANY alcohol in your system
Which is why I dropped them.
OK, I found it:
Also, since it says "impaired" I could imagine that if you are out somewhere and maybe you had a single beer or a glass of wine two hours prior to the incident, you would conceivably not be able to be considered "impaired".
Thanks for that.
I just rejoined CCW SAFE.
That law does not stop anyone from suing you. All it does is give your attorney a reason to ask the judge to dismiss the suit. If the plaintiff's attorney can convince the judge the suit should proceed, it goes forward. Either way you are going to need an attorney.
People sue firearms manufacturers all of the time despite the federal Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act. Most of them are dismissed but every now and then one goes forward.
I don’t know.
He was carrying his gun where he wasn’t supposed to.
So—Quien sabe?
Yes in your state. None of those laws forbids anyone from filing a lawsuit. I guarantee you that if someone takes a suit to the court clerk and pays the filing fee, the suit will be put on the docket and the defendant will have to respond or the plaintiff will get a summary judgement.Well. Not in my state.
But even if you're correct. Let's say a self defender is acquitted of a crime, then someone files a civil suit. The judge immediately dismisses the case,
and the person filing the suit is then charged with breaking the law-that's IF they can even find a lawyer in my state that will file the suit on their behalf, which they won't, because every lawyer in the state knows that to do so would be breaking the law.
The judge considers the arguments of the attorneys and determines if the civil immunity clause is applicable.The judge immediately dismisses the case, as is required by law...
The law provides immunity IF a judge agrees that it applies. I am aware of no civil immunity laws that provide for any sort of criminal penalty for a plaintiff or attorneys in a civil suit if the immunity law invalidates their suit. But I don't know the law in every state--can you provide the text of the law for your state?...the person filing the suit is then charged with breaking the law...every lawyer in the state knows that to do so would be breaking the law.
The language I quote from the website clearly exempts incidents that happen in the policyholder's home. I'll repeat it with the relevant sentence bolded:I think that's a wise policy for them. Guns and alcohol don't mix, and if all of these SD insurance companies would adopt the same policy, gun owners would think twice about drinking while carrying. (Well some would. Some wouldn't. Irresponsible people are going to be irresponsible.)
Not sure I agree. Think about what they teach in driver's ed. You can be legally "impaired" (i.e. get charged with a DUI) after as little as two beers. Yes, I know, there is a legal, measurable limit, and different people reach that limit in different ways, but remember the MADD advertisement-"buzzed driving is drunk driving." If you're too buzzed to drive, you're buzzed to handle a gun.
Also, I recall Massad Ayoob saying "any alcohol onboard and they won't cover you." He didn't mention CCW safe by name, but, to my knowledge, they're the only ones who have that policy, sooooo...
Did you actually speak to someone at CCW Safe about their alcohol policy?
We do firearms training for the same reason we have ALICE drills in schools (or fire drills, or earthquake drills,...or...or...) not because there is a high probability of those events (self defense shooting, active shooter, structure fire, earthquake, etc.) actually happening; we do the training because the consequences of such an event happening, and not being trained and prepared, are so high.
Carrying CCW insurance is much the same. The probability of you using your gun in SD is next to zero, but it's not zero. And if your number comes up, the consequences of that will far outweigh anything you saved in not being prepared.
Your argument seems based on mathematics and probabilities, and, you're right, you will almost certainly never need your firearm for SD in your lifetime. But if that is true (and I believe it is), then why are you (or any of us) carrying a gun? Your argument supporting not having carry insurance also supports not carrying a firearm for SD.
My goodness, what breath of fresh air!
A well thought out argument (for lack of a better word) that’s reasonable, logical, polite and I can’t disagree with a word of it.
...if I didn’t enjoy firearms I likely wouldn’t carry one.
Don't let that be the reason you carry. I enjoy firearms, but I don't carry one everywhere/every day. Although, I would if my employment circumstances were different.
That's very interesting. The only reason I became a gun owner was for self-defense. Seven years in that's still my motivation. I'm not a gun enthusiast per se, maybe partly because I'm not at all mechanical. I do appreciate the aesthetics of some guns (particularly black powder revolvers, which I have never shot), but I wouldn't buy one just to put it in my safe. I realize this makes me the odd man (ok odd old lady) out here, but that's the truth.if I didn’t enjoy firearms I likely wouldn’t carry one
I was with USCCA for a few years. They provide a lot of training materials in their magazine and Youtube presentations, however most of it is not new information to me. I was never exactly sure what USCCA would or would not cover as their literature was not specific. I changed to CCW Safe, and they provide a 22 page document that includes a section on what they will and will not cover. I don't like every exclusion, but I respect the honesty.
I have both CCW SAFE and US LAWSHIELDI was with USCCA for a few years. They provide a lot of training materials in their magazine and Youtube presentations, however most of it is not new information to me. I was never exactly sure what USCCA would or would not cover as their literature was not specific. I changed to CCW Safe, and they provide a 22 page document that includes a section on what they will and will not cover. I don't like every exclusion, but I respect the honesty.
I would be concerned that, as with insurance companies, if you have two, each one will claim that the other one is "primary," and neither will cover.I have both CCW SAFE and US LAWSHIELD
Their basic plans compliment each other.
Possibly.
To your point, it’s possible I could live to regret the decision.. I just have yet to be convinced it’s likely.
Interesting thought, and I had same one, which is why if I add coverage, it will be with ACLDN who claim NOT to be insuranceI would be concerned that, as with insurance companies, if you have two, each one will claim that the other one is "primary," and neither will cover.
It us most unlikely.I just have yet to be convinced it’s likely.
It us most unlikely.
But should it happen, most citizens would be ruined, and unable to mount the defense they might need.
It is unlikely that one will have to collect on a fire insurance policy.
None of that makes sense.If I knew I would I would lose my job and essentially be unable to get another one if my house burned down, I probably wouldn’t have fire insurance either…. Assuming that was an option.
that’s the biggest part of the equation to me, with the protection or not I’m screwed. It’s kind of like a guarantee to put 5 stitches on a bleeding wound that requires 15… you’re still gonna bleed out.
I suppose could try to explain it in more detail, but somehow I don’t think you’re interested in understanding.None of that makes sense.