Concealed Carry Insurance - Moved From Legal

Status
Not open for further replies.
4

44Caliber

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
73
Location
Massachusetts
I am not sure this is the proper forum for this thread but I would be interested in what firearms owners opinions on concealed carry insurance for self defense as offered by USCCA, CCW Safe, US Law Shield, Armed Citizens Defense and others.
 
I’m interested if there is a need for such. If it’s a justifiable use of deadly force, I don’t see why it’s needed, and likewise if it’s not justifiable, I don’t see how it’d save you. Course it probably varies state to state as to how legal use of force is handled.
 
What defense? From what I understand, and forgive my naivety, at least in this state, they don’t try to prosecute you long as it’s a good shoot.

So, let’s say, bad guy comes into church with an ak and opens fire, you kill him. When the cops get there they interview everyone. In this state they take your gun until the investigation is over. They don’t arrest you, after weeks/months once they decide yes indeed it was justified they give your gun back. That’s my understanding of how it happens if it’s a clean shoot. In the state of KY. That would vary considerably in other states.

PS,
I've asked a couple different ex Leo's about it and that's the paraphrase answer I got. And having been a ccdw instructor for the state, having been around others in that field, that's always the implication, that as long as it's a clean shoot, you've nothing to worry about.

I certainly would like info if it is to the contrary for my state. And info for other states.
 
Last edited:
Bazoo said:
So, let’s say, bad guy comes into church with an ak and opens fire, you kill him. When the cops get there they interview everyone. In this state they take your gun until the investigation is over. They don’t arrest you, after weeks/months once they decide yes indeed it was justified they give your gun back. That’s my understanding of how it happens if it’s a clean shoot. In the state of KY. That would vary considerably in other states.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the majority of defensive shootings are not that cut and dried.

For instance, say that you are out and about, someone (we'll call him Johnny) pulls a knife on you and demands your money. You back up to increase distance and draw, afore mentioned mugger lunges for you as you do and you have to shoot him.

In the aftermath, little Johnny or his family if dies, claims he was just down on his luck, and didn't really intend to hurt you, and didn't deserve to be shot. They say the knife on the ground was there before, he wasn't actually carrying a weapon. And so on and so on. Depending on the states attorney for your area, they may or may not jump on it for political purposes (or just personal animus against 2A) and try to railroad you.

That's just an example, but like I said in most defensive shootings there is at least some grey area and room for a motivated attorney to question justification.

Here in my state (IL) it is much more likely to happen than where you are, to be fair. In my case, I work as a probation officer in a neighboring county and was a juvenile detention officer for the county I live in, and as such know people in the States Attorney's Offices so I would probably be less likely to get someone motivated against me. And our SAOs aren't very activist thankfully.
 
In the state if ky, if they try you and find you not guilty criminally, you can't be tried civilly. It says this specifically in the ccdw handbook. It doesn't address if youre found to be on solid legal ground to have used deadly force without having been tried criminally, if you cannot then be sued civilly. I'd like to know that.
 
Bazoo said:
In the state if ky, if they try you and find you not guilty criminally, you can't be tried civilly. It says this specifically in the ccdw handbook. It doesn't address if youre found to be on solid legal ground to have used deadly force without having been tried criminally, if you cannot then be sued civilly. I'd like to know that.
Click to expand...
I tend to doubt that.

What the KY law says is that a person who has used deadly force is immune from criminal prosecution and from ciil liability if said use of force was justified under the law.

What the first part of that means is that a defendant may request a pre-trial immunity hearing. He and the state will provide evidence, and if the court finds that a preponderance of the evidence shows that the act was justified, the case will not go to a full trial.

If the case does go to trial, the defendant will be acquitted if the court fins that he was not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

That's not enough to block civil proceedings. A civil plaintiff need only show that a preponderance of the evidence shows the culpability of the defendant.
 
I tend to doubt that.

Ill try to find it. It'll take me a bit as I have to dig out the handbook.

What the KY law says is that a person who has used deadly force is immune from criminal prosecution and from ciil liability if said use of force was justified under the law.

Do you have reference to this? It wasn't listed in my training.

What the first part of that means is that a defendant may request a pre-trial immunity hearing. He and the state will provide evidence, and if the court finds that a preponderance of the evidence shows that the act was justified, the case will not go to a full trial.

Defendant means you're being accused. It's my understanding that they investigate it, and if they find it to be a justified shooting, there is no pre trial, no hearing. It's also my understanding that you are not arrested if the initial officers and investigators think it's a justified shooting. I was told this by a LEO acquaintance. Was I told wrong? Could you offer some clarification or more info?
 
Bazoo said:
Do you have reference to this? It wasn't listed in my training
Click to expand...

https://lawofselfdefense.com/product/level-1-state-supplement/ For Kentucky

Bazoo said:
Defendant means you're being accused.
Click to expand...
Yep.

Bazoo said:
It's my understanding that they investigate it, and if they find it to be a justified shooting, there is no pre trial, no hearing.
Click to expand...
True in all states.

Bazoo said:
It's also my understanding that you are not arrested if the initial officers and investigators think it's a justified shooting.
Click to expand...
No arrest in the absence of probable cause.

Be the first to report the incident, and prepare to start spending immediately.
 
There are plenty of areas around the country that would gladly try to prosecute you for even a justified shooting. Anyone connected to a law enforcement agency WILL most likely be sued civilly even if there is no prosecution, under federal civil rights actions. I would highly suggest anyone involved in a defensive shooting that is reviewed by a grand jury get competent legal representation through that process. Someone needs to pay for it. It only takes one officer, detective or investigator to think you should be charged, it only takes one assistant prosecutor who thinks you should be charged to haul you in front of a grand jury and try to get you indicted. There are other areas that an experienced detective can tell pretty quickly that you did the right thing. With or without insurance coverage, you are at risk of zealous actors who may have an agenda to push.
 
So is it considered foolish to carry a gun for self defense without insurance?

Could it be misconstrued that having insurance for such shows premeditation?
 
Before anyone chimes in about Stand Your Ground and Castle Doctrine laws.....

Two quick items: 1) these statutes do NOT prevent the perp or his/her family from filing a lawsuit, and as such, you could still spend a lot in legal fees just to defend yourself; and 2) which is far more important, these statutes do NOT give you any protection from any action that you take that causes injury or death to an innocent bystander.

If you are involved in a shooting incident and one of your rounds injures or kills a neighbor, bystander, etc., you can bet any amount of money you want to lose, that you will be sued and that you would lose that civil lawsuit.

I believe there really are two ways to financially protect oneself. When it comes to legal representation (criminal and civil), CCW Safe is a good choice as they have unlimited legal representation which includes appeals. It is not insurance, but rather is a membership/contract.

When it comes to civil liability coverage, USCCA covers up to $2,000,000. While USCCA does provide some legal and bonding items, it is not as strong in that area as CCW Safe.

Thus, I have both, CCW Safe really for legal representation AND USCCA for their civil liability $2,000,000 insurance coverage. There is some legal/bonding overlap, but that is ok.

I highly recommend purchasing both. Unfortunately, many individuals forget that even though they may be cleared from a "good shooting", they never escape from liability if they injure or kill an innocent bystander. Thus, one's assets and retirement could easily be put into jeopardy....not to mention how that could affect one's family.
 
Could it be misconstrued that having insurance for such shows premeditation?
Click to expand...

Kleanbore said:
How ?
Click to expand...

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2019/jan/15/so-called-murder-insurance-policies-backed-by-the-/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nras-carry-guard-comes-under-fire-as-murder-insurance/#app

https://www.gunsdownamerica.org/campaigns/stop-murder-insurance/

By calling it "Murder insurance"
Probably a bad look for a defendant if brought up to a jury.
A prosecutor or attorney in a civil trial could easily (even enthusiastically) put a spin on having these kind of policies.

Are there any examples of any claims paid towards policy holders?
Seems a testimonial would be beneficial in not only selling these policies, but also in legitimizing them.
 
Last edited:
Bazoo said:
I’m interested if there is a need for such. If it’s a justifiable use of deadly force, I don’t see why it’s needed, and likewise if it’s not justifiable, I don’t see how it’d save you. Course it probably varies state to state as to how legal use of force is handled.
Click to expand...

I think a casual review of self-defense shootings would indicate that they are not always that cut and dried. Where the facts are clear, the evidence is present and unmistakable, and your local prosecuting attorney and law enforcement are reasonable, yes, it is possible that you may not even be arrested. But often the facts are not clear, and recall that self-defense is an affirmative defense claim - to claim self-defense you essentially admit to what would otherwise be a crime but that you were justified in your action by extenuating circumstances. If the evidence does not clearly and unmistakably support your claim of those extenuating circumstances to the responding officers, then all you've done is admit to a crime, and I would expect to be arrested. Plus as we've seen across the country, there are a lot of zealous prosecuting attorneys who are more interested in fitting you into their narrative and getting re-elected than they are in pursuing the truth. You may be exonerated at any later point depending on what the evidence says. That may take a long time and involve a lot of payments for legal services.

Best case scenario is what you say. Worst case scenario is you're the next Zimmerman or what Rittenhouse is looking to be - legally justified, but how much money did they have to spend proving it? I heard it was over a million dollars for Zimmerman before his trial even started.

Personally I do have a membership for CCW Safe. It was pretty inexpensive and in line for costs to any other side insurance policy I have, like $12-15 a month or something like that. In exchange for that, if I am involved in a self-defense incident, I have 24/7 emergency hotline access; a critical response team will literally come to my house; I have bail coverage; up-front coverage of attorney's fees, investigation fees, and expert witness fees with no caps; replacement of a confiscated firearm, wage loss coverage, counseling coverage, crime scene cleanup if it occurs in my house, and full coverage of appeals and expungement costs. The founder was a law enforcement officer involved in a shooting who designed the program around what LEOs receive from their agency and union when they are involved in a shooting.

Also these programs aren't insurance per se, they're subscription legal services. Which may sound pedantic, but in some places (mainly Washington state) they're not legal because the state insurance commissioner has determined that they are insurance products and cannot be sold or used in those states without meeting the licensing and financial requirements of an insurance company.
 
Madcap_Magician said:
I think a casual review of self-defense shootings would indicate that they are not always that cut and dried
Click to expand...
The real issues are that the investigators, the charging authority, and counsel for both sides were not there at the time; witnesses likely only started paying attention during the event, and missed parts of it; and regarding self defense, "they all say that"--few attorneys have experienced cases in which the actors were really innocent.
 
Bazoo said:
What defense? From what I understand, and forgive my naivety, at least in this state, they don’t try to prosecute you long as it’s a good shoot.
Click to expand...
Depending on the details, you may need a lawyer and expert witnesses to convince the DA it was a righteous shoot and not charge you. Further, even if you are not held criminally liable, you may well need legal support in fending off a civil lawsuit from the person you shot or the family.
 
The current political climate blurs what in days past would be a clear cut justified self defense shooting. For example if you are charged with a felony by an overzealous DA, no matter that you will prevail in court, you will incur lawyer fees in the six figures. You have to know what you will do if you find yourself handcuffed in the back of a cruiser. Got a lawyer? Will he/she return a call at 3 am?
Having CCW insurance will give you access to legal counsel 24/7, protection of your assets for a legally justified shooting. Think of it as auto insurance, for your CCW.
 
There are so many articles that claim to decide which is the best. Here is another one......https://gununiversity.com/concealed-carry-insurance/. I found some of the criteria the authors use to be somewhat humorous. For instance, in one of the articles listed above, a recommendation for one company was due to that it was cheap with minimal benefits. I have no idea why would someone go that route when their life, family, and finances could be at risk. Cheap with minimal benefits doesn't cut it IMHO.

The reader should call and ask for a detailed sample contract from whatever company they are interested in and compare it to other companies. Here is a sample of a contract with a company (https://firearmslegal.com/) that sells "legal protection" https://firearmslegal.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/other-states-sample-policy.pdf. After getting to paragraph 4.1, I stopped reading. That paragraph states:

4.1 Forty-Eight (48) Hour Notice.
A Member must notify us within 48 hours of a Use of Weapon Incident by a Member. Failure to notify us
within this timeframe will relieve us of any and all obligation to provide a Legal Service Benefit or Other
Benefits.

While I'm not trying to pick on this company, but I am surprised they would include such a restrictive "get out of performance clause". It's as if they never considered the real possibility that one of their subscribers could be injured, and hospitalized due to an incident of self-defense, and are unable to contact them......or just maybe they have considered that.

Every company and contract is different. Some have a list of vetted experienced attorneys while others have just a list of attorneys that signed up to their program. Some have experienced criminal attorneys in their organization while others do not.

To the reader, make a list of questions and call the various companies and ask the same questions and get a copy of their contract. Then after evaluating the answers received and reading their contracts, hopefully, you will be able to make a truly informed decision.

Lastly, USSCA announced today, effective November 1st, they are offering unlimited legal costs. Unfortunately, they did not say at what cost. Thus, it is too early to see if they will be cheaper (there's that word again) than the combined CCW Safe and USCCA approach. I would think if the cost difference is not that great or the same, it would be better to have an organization like CCW Safe's legal team when it comes to legal representation.
 
357 Terms said:
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2019/jan/15/so-called-murder-insurance-policies-backed-by-the-/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nras-carry-guard-comes-under-fire-as-murder-insurance/#app

https://www.gunsdownamerica.org/campaigns/stop-murder-insurance/

By calling it "Murder insurance"
Probably a bad look for a defendant if brought up to a jury.
A prosecutor or attorney in a civil trial could easily (even enthusiastically) put a spin on having these kind of policies.

Are there any examples of any claims paid towards policy holders?
Seems a testimonial would be beneficial in not only selling these policies, but also in legitimizing them.
Click to expand...
====
I was involved in an on-duty shooting back in 1984. Grand jury no billed it (no criminal charges and justified my actions from a criminal standpoint). Went back to work but soon sued in Federal District Court for civilly violating my assailant's constitutional rights. They wanted several million. We eventually went to trial in federal court. NO ONE from either side was allowed to make any mention of the liability insurance coverage the city had covering judgements against me (well, the police department) or the city as a whole. If the jury hears that 'some insurance company' will pay the damages, it's much easier for them to grant a big payout, because it's magic money that me or the city wouldn't be paying for anyway. I won the federal civil trial and they didn't get a penny there either.

I had the opportunity later as I neared retirement to sit on a local jury in a civil action that resulted from a car crash. The driver had stipulated that he had collided with the vehicle in front of him at a stop sign. With that admission of guilt, our only responsibility was the determination of compensation to be awarded the driver who was struck. One of the first things one of the jurors said was, "there probably insurance, so we should just give the victim what they want". I pointed out that there was no discussion or mention of any insurance, and that insurance shouldn't be a cash cow (although it often is). We went step by step with the various claims the victim put forth and we assigned a $$ amount to each one and tabulated it up.

Insurance is great if it is used appropriately. In my personal case, I would still be paying off a judgement if there had been one against me. As it was, just my defense in federal court was just over $100,000 back in the middle 1980s. I'm not sure there are many attorneys I know personally that I would trust if that was their fee for that amount of work today. It ain't cheap.
 
If you are considering some sort of self-defense legal aid subscription service, make sure you get one that will pay up front for your costs and not require repayment no matter what the outcome is. There's no benefit to one that will reimburse you for expenses if you can't afford to incur those expenses in the first place.
 
I recommend the insurance.

Because of some sweet deals being offered to instructors in my area, I carry two:
US Law Shield
USCCA

US Law shield is pretty affordable, IMO and are currently defending the Texan (his name escapes me right now) who ended a mass shooting at a church with a DA head shot at some 25 yards.

USCCA is pretty cool because adding a spouse is really affordable ($75/year if I recall).

I don't have the money lying around for legal fees, I just don't. So for a couple of hundred bucks a year it's worth it to me.
 
In the State of Massachusetts the DAs department frown very highly on self defense shooting. In this state you have a requirement to get out of the situation before firing a shot in self defense and that is a very slippery slope as it's all up to interpretation by people who hate gun owners in general. If you carry in this state its a VERY good idea to have insurance to help pay for your lawyer as you will without a doubt need one for both criminal and civil court.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

N9NWO
  • Locked
Question on legal insurance for gun owners
Replies
20
Views
811
patmccoy
P
W
  • Locked
Self-Defence Insurance Coverage
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
Micro
M
D
  • Locked
Legal Insurance?
Replies
2
Views
880
mons meg
M
raindog
  • Locked
My Opinionated Survey of CC Insurance Options
Replies
14
Views
1K
herrwalther
H
J
  • Locked
Self Defense Insurance
Replies
16
Views
1K
husbandofaromanian
H
Back
Top