Get A Legal Defense Plan.

[Matthew Temkin]

People have the right to make poor choices. Not everyone survives the consequences of their choices.

True.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

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.

Not entirely accurate. My state has a law prohibiting civil suit if you're acquitted on the criminal side.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

Possibly.

To your point, it’s possible I could live to regret the decision.. I just have yet to be convinced it’s likely.

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.

 

[Jeff White]

Not entirely accurate. My state has a law prohibiting civil suit if you're acquitted on the criminal side.

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.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

CCW’s only drawback is they won’t cover you if there is ANY alcohol in your system
Which is why I dropped them.

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.)

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".

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...

Thanks for that.
I just rejoined CCW SAFE.

Did you actually speak to someone at CCW Safe about their alcohol policy?

 

[D.B. Cooper]

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.

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, as is required by law, 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.

But, yeah, whatever.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

I don’t know.
He was carrying his gun where he wasn’t supposed to.
So—Quien sabe?

I don't know about the others, but CCW Safe will not cover you if you use your gun in a place where you'er not allowed to have a gun and it's punishable by law. But if you're state doesn't have a crime for carrying concealed beyond a gun free zone sign, and you haven't been asked to leave, they'll cover you. I had to email them about that because their term of service on that issue is very poorly worded.

So if you can't be arrested for carrying a gun into Buffalo Wild Wings, and/or you agree to leave when asked to do so, they cover you. They were, however, quite clear, that they would not cover you if. you were taking part in a political action, such as open carrying to prove a point.

 

[Jeff White]

Well. Not in my state.

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.

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,

The judge will not immediately dismiss the suit. The defendant has to respond to the suit, reference the state law giving immunity and then the judge will dismiss the suit. Of course the plaintiff’s attorney is free to argue that the law should not apply in this case for whatever reason.

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.

You've never been to court have you? Our system doesn’t work like that. Anyone can be sued for anything by anyone at anytime. The only exceptions are for elected officials who have sovereign immunity and other public officials who have qualified immunity, and even those laws don’t protect them from being named in a lawsuit, they just protect those officials from being personally liable.

What you are saying is probably one of the biggest misconceptions in the laws as they apply to self defense. Those state laws, my state has one too, do not stop anyone from filing suit. They are a big protection from being found liable. But, and it’s a big but, if you are sued and you don’t respond because you believe the law says you can’t be sued, the judge will enter a default judgement for the plaintiff. The law only protects you if you respond to the lawsuit with a motion to dismiss because the state law says you can’t be sued. Guess what you have to do to respond with a motion to dismiss. Hire a lawyer…..

 

[JohnKSa]

Those immunity laws can be very vague, as well and the protection they offer may be more limited than one expects.

In TX, the wording is such that it's unclear what would cause the immunity clause to kick in. I queried a lawyer who specializes in such things about whether a no-bill, failure to charge, or acquittal would provide protection under the TX civil immunity law and he indicated that it wasn't clear in the law and it would have to be handled on a case-by-case basis. Meaning, argued in court in front of a judge. Meaning you'd need an attorney to represent you and handle that.

In addition, even if it does turn out to be applicable for a particular case, TX civil immunity law is exclusively focused on personal injury and therefore does not cover civil suits for property damage resulting from a self-defense incident.

So...

The judge immediately dismisses the case, as is required by law...

The judge considers the arguments of the attorneys and determines if the civil immunity clause is applicable.

...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 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?

 

[old lady new shooter]

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?

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:

• Substances That Alter Judgment: CCW Safe will not provide the services if, at the time of a use of force incident, you are impaired in public or private property not of your own, by the use of alcohol, controlled substances, or prescribed medication that impairs judgment, or in any location you are in violation of state law or regulation concerning alcohol and drug use while in the possession of a firearm. This restriction is specific to any public place or private property not of your own.

My comment regarding the use of the word "impaired" was not intended to represent CCW Safe's policy on the matter, just to present a hypothetical... in fact two hours after a glass of wine an adult should no longer have any alcohol detectable in their system... but personally I think if you are carrying you should not drink, period. You have no way of knowing when an incident might arise. So you need to make a decision between your desire to drink away from home with your desire (or principle) to always carry.

 

[DeepSouth]

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.

The only things I can add is to your last point, if I didn’t enjoy firearms I likely wouldn’t carry one. Though my area of the world is getting more dangerous so I want say that for sure, I also want say a year from now I want have CCW insurance, I am nearly persuaded…. But not quite.


The other thing is alluded to in the cost of self defense video in post #49. In my situation the likelihood of me keeping my job in the event of a trial is nearly zero, and getting another job at even a close to comparable wage is also nearly zero. I would be doing very, very good to get 50% of my current income. Financially, my life would be ruined, it’s not just possible I would lose everything I own that is the likelihood, and that’s with or without CCW insurance. And if it doesn’t go to trial I believe I could financially survive without CCW insurance.

As you stated, my position is based on mathematical probabilities and likelihood, figured into my personal financial and employment situation. It’s also very individual to me and my circumstances.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

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.

Thanks. I try.

...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.

 

[DeepSouth]

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.

There are multiple reasons, alone none of them would likely persuade me to carry. Together they do, pretty easily. That’s probably more common than not, especially outside of this sub forum.

 

[old lady new shooter]

if I didn’t enjoy firearms I likely wouldn’t carry one

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.

 

[Tenncvol]

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.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

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.

One of USCCA's clients sued them a few years back because they refused to pay out to represent him after a SD event. That was all I needed to know to know to avoid them.

As for the training materials, they seem to be more of a training facility than a legal defense facility.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

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 LAWSHIELD
Their basic plans compliment each other.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

I have both CCW SAFE and US LAWSHIELD
Their basic plans compliment each other.

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.

 

[Buzznrose]

Possibly.

To your point, it’s possible I could live to regret the decision.. I just have yet to be convinced it’s likely.

I thought this was too but know of someone who spent over $20K to get past a SD shooting when accosted pumping gas.

I have USCCA but also am considering adding Armed Citizens Legal Defense (first one on left)

Yeah, probably overkill. I live in a good area, in TX, a more or less gun friendly place. But I have way too much to lose to not spend the $1000 or less per year to make sure my family is protected.

 

[Buzznrose]

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.

Interesting thought, and I had same one, which is why if I add coverage, it will be with ACLDN who claim NOT to be insurance

https://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/

 

[Kleanbore]

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.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

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.

Yup. I see this all the time. For example, people drop their comprehensive and collision vehicle insurance coverage the day they pay off their vehicle loan. Really? You mean you spent all that money over the life of the loan to protect the bank's interests, but you won't spend it to protect yourself?

Same with carry insurance. Yes there are opportunity costs. CCW Safe is expensive at $50 /month and that's enough to fund a retirement account (or buy ammo and go to the range every month), but there is an opportunity cost to not having carry insurance, too. If you ever need it and don't have it, what could you have done with all the money you're going to spend out of pocket on legal fees? Ot even worse, what could you have done with all the time (our most limited resource) that you spend behind bars that might have been avoided by being able to mount an effective legal defense?

As with car insurance, home owner's insurance, life insurance...a legal defense plan is thre to protect you, your family, and your/their interests.

 

[DeepSouth]

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.

 

[Kleanbore]

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.

None of that makes sense.

 

[DeepSouth]

None of that makes sense.

I suppose could try to explain it in more detail, but somehow I don’t think you’re interested in understanding.