This channel popped up in my YouTube feed. These attorneys practice self defense law. Pretty sage advice:
Major omission on their part not to mention this.Get self defense insurance.
CCW USCCA LAW Shield.
Why are they obligated to advertise for USCCA on their platform?Major omission on their part not to mention this.
They aren't, but it is sort of like talking about how expensive a house fire is. . . and never mentioning that you might consider homeowners insurance.Why are they obligated to advertise for USCCA on their platform?
I’m not sure there is anyone else. It’s the only company I know of.Why are they obligated to advertise for USCCA on their platform?
They're not but they're the largest.I’m not sure there is anyone else. It’s the only company I know of.
Not USCCA in particular, but carry insurance.Why are they obligated to advertise for USCCA on their platform?
CCW Safe offers such a policy.This applies to concealed carry. What about home defense. If you shoot someone who broke into your house? Do you still need this insurance? I would hope that there is a plan for non-carry home defense that has a lower premium.
I have CCW Safe, which I selected after comparing plans. They even have an add-on that covers civil judgments.I’m not sure there is anyone else. It’s the only company I know of.
Thanks.CCW Safe offers such a policy.
Probably not as the Court Costs are likely about the same if a claim needs to be made.I would hope that there is a plan for non-carry home defense that has a lower premium.
I doubt it. In most states, the defender is provided a legal presumption that some of the conditions needed for justification existed, and much of the evidence will be more straight forward.Probably not as the Court Costs are likely about the same if a claim needs to be made.
The probability of needing to make a claim is probably about equal, at the actuarial level.
That is what I am thinking, inside one's home it will be harder for the perp, if he runs away to blame me.I doubt it. In most states, the defender is provided a legal presumption that some of the conditions needed for justification existed, and much of the evidence will be more straight forward.
I fully acknowledge that presumption; my thinking was for that circumstance where one was in court, for whatever reason.I doubt it. In most states, the defender is provided a legal presumption that some of the conditions needed for justification existed,
I don't think so.I But, once in court, the court costs are likely to be similar.
I don't remember the details of which plan is which but I do remember that the carry plan for people with a permit is cheaper than the constitutional carry plan. If the home defense plan costs more that may be because it assumes no carry permit.Thanks.
The DEFENDER PLAN (they indicate best for CC) is $209 a year, but the Home Defense plan is $299, but the details may reveal the reason for the cost difference.
What I find appalling is that any state can prevent you from buying a plan:
"ABOUT THE CCW SAFE HOME DEFENSE PLAN
NOTE: The states of New York (NY), New Jersey (NJ) and Washington (WA) do not allow coverage for self-defense incidents. Residents of these states are unable to purchase this plan."
That's for the self defense part. Unless your state has a law that people judged to have used deadly force in self defense are immune from civil suits, you can still be sued by the family of the breaker-in.I doubt it. In most states, the defender is provided a legal presumption that some of the conditions needed for justification existed, and much of the evidence will be more straight forward.
That is really irritating that someone can come to steal, invade your personal space (home), threaten you, and if you defend yourself, he or his relatives can sue you. The law should be that if you break into a house or other facility you have just given up your rights.That's for the self defense part. Unless your state has a law that people judged to have used deadly force in self defense are immune from civil suits, you can still be sued by the family of the breaker-in.
Such laws do not prevent civil suits. What they do is provide a mechanism for the courts to consider the evidence and decide whether to dismiss a suit before it goes to trial.That's for the self defense part. Unless your state has a law that people judged to have used deadly force in self defense are immune from civil suits, you can still be sued by the family of the breaker-in.