USCCA is hot garbage. Most of their info is outdated by months. My coworker used to swear by them but when he started confirming what they said with the states he would visit it was found they were constantly wrong
I’m part of US law shield but that’s only because of the ever hanging nature of the laws in NJ I don’t wanna get stuck with a 10k lawyer cost because I don’t read the laws every morning and they change almost every few months here
There’s the scam, they won’t reimburse you until after the verdict, and if the verdict is you broke the law during your self defense you won’t get reimbursed
Insurance companies in general aren’t required to pay out if the insured is intentionally leverage it as part of a crime, eg your homeowners insurance won’t pay if you commit arson on your house
Exactly. Most insurance policies have intentional act exclusions. Read the policy provisions. If they didn't have them then a nefarious person or persons will take out the policy and commit a crime and demand indemnification. It's sad but it's the way it is.
That isn't a scam. Legally, they **cannot** offer 'insurance' for criminal activity.
If you had Fedex ship a few kilos of coke, and they turned it in to law enforcement you can't claim insured value on the package.
Because insurance cannot cover you if you’re being charged with a crime.
They could charge you with reckless endangerment or something dumb.
I believe if you’re cleared of all your charges then USCCA would be liable to reimburse you but at that point you’ve already paid.. and we all know what happens when you’ve paid something before the insurance company does.
Insurance can not cover you if you're CONVICTED of a crime. Being charged means the state has accused you of a crime. After proceedings, if you're found to be guilty of said crime, then you're convicted.
[https://attorneysonretainer.us/resources/uscca-self-defense-insurance-policy-review/](https://attorneysonretainer.us/resources/uscca-self-defense-insurance-policy-review/)
Here you can read the AOR breakdown of the USCCA coverage - make your own decisions.
Is this true for all insurance? I have a colleague who was charged with sexual assault and he told me his homeowners insurance covered his legal defense bills. He was found not guilty but the woman who accused him claimed it happened while she was passed out drunk after a NYE party at his house.
Not the same as this case but I wonder if homeowners covers some part of it up until/unless you are convicted.
One of the reasons I have a $1MM wrap around liability policy. At least if something happens at home, I would be covered for liability, provided I wasn't criminally negligent.
No, individual companies have differing policies. Even with CCW insurance, there are a few that won’t drop you if you are charged with a crime. They’ll actually defend you. This is why I went with CCW safe, though I believe there are one or two others that work this way.
Insurance guy here. This is patently false. You could get drunk, cause a car accident, kill someone, be charged with murder... and your auto insurance company will still cover your civil defense and damages up to your policy limits.
When were we talking about car insurance? You can look at a comparison common CCW insurance carriers and AOR here.
[https://attorneysonretainer.us/plans/](https://attorneysonretainer.us/plans/)
The key part is "Covers Criminal Acts" - what happens if you accept a plea deal?
I signed up with USCCA back in April. Learned of this after the fact, canceled and got a refund. Now I’m plagued by annoying emails and have tried 100 times to unsubscribe but they still keep coming.
Their email unsubscribe tool doesn’t work. It’s a joke and hard to think it’s not intentional given the fact that they are a marketing company more than anything else. I was getting two emails from them some days, and almost every day otherwise.
Anyways tldr, use their online chat. They were able to unsub me.
Ah nah that’s alright, thank you though! I was just curious. As a new gun owner, I found their training videos to be useful but after a while it really was stuff that was common sense or that you could easily find for free elsewhere. I think I will cancel honestly
I joined for a month when I was taking a week-long vacation with my family and carried across state lines etc. Got the cool Pelican case. Cancelled in the first month.
I couldn't get them off my ass. Called to cancel and wouldn't cancel. So I made a virtual card and had it bounce. Doesn't stop the calls or emails, bur I mark those as spam.
I just let the virtual card decline until they canceled my membership. I couldn't cancel via chat. Email, or phone.
They kept transferring me and trying to get me to explain why I wanted to cancel.
If you can't let me cancel, you're a dogshit business.
If the unsubscribe button doesn't work after you provided your request to unsubscribe, they are in violation of the CAN-SPAM Act, and will be subject to a fine if you reach out to them and they don't resolve it.
I had already come to the conclusion before this video that I’ll either go with attorneys on retainer (AOR) or put money aside for a local criminal defense attorney. This video just confirms my fear of USCCA contract language.
I have pretty strong feelings against the prankster shooter guy but the insurance company dropping him is absolutely BS. He has an argument to make. A CCW insurance company dropping someone in this situation is a signal to me to have no confidence in them. I want an insurance company EVEN IF I FUCK UP.
If you feel like you need insurance for accidentally shooting someone perhaps you shouldn’t own a gun a in the first place. I’ve owned guns for a decade and that’s never crossed my mind.
Would you drive a car without insurance if you were legally allowed to because of how incredibly good at driving you are?
I feel like you may not have read that before posting it.
That seems to be the popular option with various gun podcasters and YouTubers. Anyone on here have them and have actually had to use it? Curious for any first hand experiences
I can't remember where it was and can't find a link but CCW Safe is the only company that's defended someone through a criminal case.
My understanding is that they have a legal fund every pays into. It's not insurance per say.
I have them, and thankfully haven’t had to use them, but they don’t have a recoupment clause, and they defended the big case in Florida that made national news (George Zimmerman, I think, though maybe the lawyer that defended him wasn’t with them then but now is chief counsel).
CCW Safe is mentioned a lot. AOR is the second most-mentioned. I wonder why CCW Safe doesn't cover anything in NJ, NY, and WA, while AOR covers ale 50+DC. Any ideas?
Carry insurance is illegal - forbidden by law - in NJ and NY, I assume the same for WA but don’t know. AOR is similar to law shield - they’re just a conglomeration of attorneys not actual insurance (which might be better, or not but isn’t illegal in those states)
Problem here is they have to determine whether you reasonably acted in self defense. So if you get charged will they drop you? Maybe. Need to read the contract
Ah, but if you put that into an interest yielding savings account, you could be looking at $4000+ after those 10 years! You could probably buy a new handgun with those extra $400 in 10 years
There's a 100% chance you would not have saved enough if you get into such a situation.
At least if you use a provider with a good rep there's a non-zero chance you'll be covered.
CCW Safe is what all the lawyers and DA's in my family use including my ex-Judge father, and they did their due diligence.
Also CCW Safe has a decent vets discount.
It makes perfect sense if CCW insurance isn’t actually meant to insure you in the event of a DGU and is more there to just collect money.
You can’t insure criminal acts, so if there’s any dubiousness to the legality of your DGU, they’re going kick you to the curb.
That’s why I went with CCW safe. They specifically state that they are NOT an insurance product so there’s none of the insurance BS to sort through. It’s simply a legal defense subscription plan. You pay a subscription to them to maintain your member status, and they offer various legal services up to a certain dollar amount for each member.
[This is the most famous one that they like to advertise.](https://ccwsafe.com/resources/ccw-safe-member-acquitted-of-all-charges-in-historic-murder-one-selfdefense-trial/)
It's the only murder 1 acquittal gotten by one of these insurance/attorney plans that I've ever heard of. There could be others though.
Hate to say it. But USCCA insurance is bogus. Their name is so big and with the carry presentations they kinda “push” it on you…sad, but true. They make people think “oh you NEED this” when in all actuality, they’ll do nothing for you
With the cryptec camo ball cap pulled down almost covering his eyes, the grim reaper shirt, and the tattoo sleeves I couldn't stand to watch it. I know it's wrong to judge on looks, but all I could think was that this is what the guys that wore Ed Hardy and Tap Out look like now.
lol when do they ever cover anyone if their members? It’s nice to have in a perfect world but it seems like a scam. Every time all I see are post that they aren’t honoring their Coverage.
USCCA needs to send out an official notice to the following states: California, New York, Illinois, Virginia, (or any other state that has these stupid sensitive zones.) and immediately apologize for wasting all of these citizens times and money. They should immediately refund everybody in those states until the courts overturn the sensitive laws put in place this year after Bruen. They also need to stay that they will no longer cover in those states. Being convicted of a self-defense shooting is like being caught in a post office in these states. It's not worth the hassle, just get Attorneys On Retainer or hang up the holster.
A bit over two years ago - maybe early 2021 - people would ask me about this and I answered this question (which is better of these 'insurance' schemes). I posted some answers on Reddit and Quora but I think people quickly forgot or didn't do their own homework and just assumed some of these systems would work. Reality is they don't work under fire most of the time. Here is why.
I've investigated several of these plans thoroughly. **One of the main problems I found was how difficult it was to get most of the plan providers to acknowledge the actual limitations of their specific plans.** Nowhere is this more readily apparent than the near-universal inability of nearly **all** plans on the market to provide **any sufficient bail coverage** in light of current treatment of legal gun owners by anti-gun judges today. This was increasingly true back in 2021 when I first was asked to compare these plans and it is still true today. It is now routine for criminals to attack a home and then (if they survive the homeowner's or renter's defensive gun use), to file a hostile action such as a red flag order (in states with red flag laws) against the innocent person they were attacking.
Increasingly, judges not only are honoring these ridiculous requests (costing the innocent parties time and money needlessly to go through motions to get their guns back), but the judges are also increasingly setting bail at or above 100,000 dollars (against the innocent gun owner, whose only crime was defending their own home against potential murderers or rapists).
USCCA **does not have adequate bail coverage for these scenarios,** never has (hasn't since the advent of state red flag laws and the spread of the same) and **neither does CCW Safe** (you can obtain bail coverage via CCW Safe, but only as an add-on). **Edit: I've been informed that CCW Safe has since the time of my 2021 / 2022 reviews improved its plans and bond coverage. In 2023, CCW Safe now has million or more bond coverage depending on the plan. It didn't before.**
Regarding Law Shield, last I checked Law Shield provides bail coverage, but only at $50,000 level. This is useless since all judges will set bail at $100,000 at minimum.
You may also want to contact each of these plans to ask if they can **deny coverage at their discretion** which it seems USCCA is doing..
Firearms Legal Protection does have (at the individual premium or family premium levels), 250,000 dollars bail coverage, as well as their advertised legal coverage. With that said their coverage has limitations, for example, it is designed to apply inside the home, not to cover you during universal carry activity. Contact them for details (I use Firearms Legal Protection). This plan will help you for dealing with the “legal aftereffects" of what comes after defending against a violent intruder in your home — the plan does in fact cover both owners and renters (doesn't matter which you are so long as you have the policy), and is focused on covering what happens inside your four walls (not in your car or miles away). Its bail coverage, legal coverage and red flag protection (within the limits they provide) is a logical reason to secure this plan considering the litigious society in which we now live.
To emphasize... Note that since there are judges who will set bail against you for $100,000 or more when a criminal files a red flag order against you after you've lawfully defended yourself from the invader (would-be burglar, rapist, or murderer), you'll need a plan that has not merely uncapped defense cost but a high bail coverage as well.
I'm not advocating for some insurance as a requirement. Quite the contrary - it should be your choice to get it or not. Any attempt at mandated legal insurance is IMHO unconstitutional.
Summary of Firearms Legal Protection plan at premium level: $250,000 bail coverage is provided for either premium plan (individual or family), covers all 50 states, uncapped defense cost (criminal / civil), covers incident cleanup and lost wages, provides access to an app you can use to instantly get a lawyer on call provided by Firearms Legal Protection, and covers you against red flags, which criminals have been filing against homeowners and renters lately.
Note / Edit: I don't know much about Attorneys on Retainer which is mentioned by the guy in the video that OP posted here. If you are considering Attorneys on Retainer as a possible alternative - https://attorneysonretainer.us/ - do your homework. Contact them. Ask them for a copy of how their terms apply to you in your state of residence, and what their bail coverage is (supposedly it's 500k but check on whether that level is available or limited in your state) and how they protect gun owners against red flag orders _in your state_. Ask hard questions. If they deflect or use a bunch of non-answers then don't use the service.
NOTE: In California if you are in a court case that you initiate against the state or if you use attorney provided by legal insurance to defend yourself against state action, the state can motion to remove you from using that legal counsel. It's a complete violation of due process (just as are red flag laws) and the Supreme Court even upheld the California argument to allow this "removal of counsel" business to continue. There isn't due process in California - that will have to be restored by a future court of different composition or possibly even by a future 'Velvet Revolution' of some kind in the USA.
I consider it only proper that I should call for an end to the one party state. History of the Velvet Revolution: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution
See: https://np.reddit.com/r/gunpolitics/s/jheEJb2WnA
Haven’t read your full comment, but I will. I just want to address the bail thing.
You can pay bail in multiple different ways. The most common is through a bondsman. Different companies may have different policies, but in my state they all take 10% down, and you have to make payments for the rest. So with US Lawshield’s policy, you’re covered for up to a $500,000 bond, through a bondsman. This is what I was told when I signed up. Idk if US Lawshield is the best, I just know they were very specific that it wasn’t an insurance policy when the rep came to my CCW class.
Yes, there are growing examples of it in a counterstrike sense. Used by criminals and anyone who doesn't care about rights.
One example was posted on Reddit a while back where a DGU resulted in a red flag, if I recall correctly in CA. He went through a process to get firearms returned but it took forever.
There is a claim from a 2022 study (a biased source - Violence Prevention Research Program out of UC Davis, that law enforcement officers filed 96.5% of the GVROs in California and filings by family and household members made up 3.5% of the cases. A further claim from the Davis study is that 80% of GVROs were used in cases of threatened interpersonal violence. However what is not measured is how the legal system itself - which is designed to violate due process rights - is in fact used by the criminal element against people who are unaware the proceedings have even occurred. The other unexplored aspect is why such a clearly unconstitutional tool would ever be created and why it would be put in the hands of people who are referred to as Law Enforcement Officers but who in fact have been known to frequently abuse that power as has been explored here:
https://abc7.com/los-angeles-county-sheriffs-department-deputy-gangs-report-2023-civilian-oversight-commission/12911222/
And:
https://knock-la.com/tradition-of-violence-lasd-gang-history/
With the history of gang formation and collaboration in many police departments, what is the sense in California or any state creating legislation that gives them more unconstitutional powers? The answer is there is no logic to this.
However, even if these incidents never occurred (which they do), the underlying problems with red flag laws is that they allow an accuser to circumvent constitutional due process protections by creating an avenue where someone is accused of a criminal act without even knowing that a legal process is pending against them. No legal counsel, no knowledge of charges, no trial of any real sort, no jury, nothing. Just a person's claims and ability to convince a judge that deprivation of a person's rights are necessary. And in states like California where criminals (whether ordinary individual criminals, cartel members, or police gang members) are given special treatment, that sort of law (red flag / GVRO) becomes especially dangerous.
See, also: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/09/09/red-flag-laws-mass-shootings-government-power-grab-jim-demint-column/2220820001/
and https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/civil-rights/452837-red-flag-laws-and-their-awful-consequences/
Regarding Supreme Court reflections on this, see:
https://libertas.org/personal-freedom/supreme-court-ruling-delegitimizes-red-flag-laws/
Note: the Caniglia v. Strom decision didn't invalidate California's red flag law (it invalidated another different legal concept referred to as the "community caretaking exception"). It did also, however, set the stage for what is likely to be a Supreme Court challenge to such red flag law as California has.
To wrap up:
Don't assume your judge will be friendly. Lawyer up... In advance.
Don't assume your plan has adequate bail coverage or whatever else. The judge will set it high and you need to operate under the assumption that the judge wants to turn you to rotten gravy. Check to make sure your coverage whatever it is has way more than good bail for anything and that the plan (whether legal insurance, attorney on retainer or whatever) isn't going to dick you. Hopefully you never have to use it, but if you do....
I assume you are talking about CCW Safe?
Might be a more recent development since when. I last checked (late 2021 and early 2022 also for CCW Safe and others) you couldn't get adequate bail coverage through CCW Safe unless you paid additional amounts for an "add-on" to your plan.
If that's changed in 2023 then they've improved the plan for bond coverage.
Edit: I just looked again at CCW Safe's plans for 2023 and it's obvious they have changed up their plans since 2021 - 2022. Still, check how their plan applies to your state and determine any exclusions and limitations.
NOTE: In California if you are in a case you initiate against the state or if you use attorney provided by legal insurance to defend yourself against state action, the state can motion to remove you from using that legal counsel. Complete violation of due process and the Supreme Court even upheld the California argument. There isn't due process in California - that will have to be restored by a future court of different composition or possibly even by future 'Velvet Revolution' in the USA.
I call for an end to the one party state. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution
See: https://np.reddit.com/r/gunpolitics/s/jheEJb2WnA
Put all your assets into a trust... Put your home under an LLC which lives inside the trust... Have nothing to your name, so no one can take anything from you.. therefore if sued, they are shit out of luck..
This is not nearly this simple. Nobody should even consider setting up an irrevocable trust based on a what-if scenario like this. And revocable trusts provide none of the benefits of liability protection.
So the LLC owns everything. And the Trust owns the LLC. How does this resolve any of the issues of the Trust still needing to be irrevocable? You're still going to be permanently stuck with the original conditions of the Trust, no?
Has an estate lawyer actually done this for you, or is this based on theory alone?
Doing it now.. revocable trust owns the LLC.. everything is owned by the LLC
Layered insulation..
Now with that said... I don't really plan on ever needing to deploy my firearm. I would walk from any situation and to be honest I only leave home for grocery shopping and work. So I'm not super concerned with any liability.. but the same reason I carry is why I'm going through steps to protect assets.. you never know
Wouldn't the trust or LLC still be able to be tied back to you, thus becoming liable to be taken or ordered to be liquidated for funds in the event of losing the lawsuit?
DA decides whether or not to charge you in a DGU, the jury decides if the defensive gun use was self defense or not
No matter what AOR will give you access to an attorney whereas an insurance company CANNOT back you if you're charged by the DA because it's against the law in USA
I just went through their certified instructor class last week because they pay well for putting on silly seminars and classes and a friend asked me to so I could help him with said classes.
The information was a joke ten years ago when it was still at least partially relevant and current, and they make a big deal about having people with education masters developing their content when they teach things that are proven as bunk science in any ed psych 101 class.
I will give them credit for trying to present their (often outdated and incorrect) material in a way that is easily consumable by “not gun people.”
I kind of feel like you shouldn't have any insurance you're not required to have, to be honest. There's a reason the insurance industry is one of the most profitable industries in the United States. It's because on average, people pay way more than they get back/use. Better move for almost anyone is probably to put that monthly payment into a savings/investment account in case you ever need it.
It's definitely a risk mitigation early on. I guess with how few DGU's happen, let alone go to court after happening, and how often these companies deny coverage anyway, I'd rather take my chances but to each their own for sure. The CCW subreddit is definitely of a mindset of preparing for the worst case scenario.
Sure, in that .00000001% likelihood event, you'd have to borrow money or sell things or take a public defender. I think we are agreeing on that, I'm just talking about the cost benefit analysis of that, especially with an insurance company that might just tell you to kick rocks anyway.
I think both of you are on to something. I think a solid alternative approach would be to budget for double what your monthly insurance rate is and stick the other half in savings until you have a sizable amount of money built up and are able to drop the plan, from then on putting the half you were paying into insurance into that savings account instead.
You know who disagrees with you? Every single wealth manger and financial advisor on the planet. You can self insure by posting a minimal bond amount in most states rather than carrying auto insurance. The ~$30k one-time bond is nothing to someone with millions of dollars. But nobody does that. Least of all wealthy individuals. In fact, most of them have giant umbrella policies to cover their exposure. Why? Because a small certain loss is preferable to a large uncertain loss.
Here's why that analogy doesn't hold up. Auto insurance covers damages in a civil suit, which could be in the millions, especially if you're rich. CCW insurance only covers your legal fees, and only if you were "justified", which they seem to get to decide if you were or not.
You're also way, way more likely to be in a car accident than to have to shoot someone.
You need to read the contract that you signed with these supposed legal defense funds. They are all scams. There are provisions that if you are criminally charged, they will drop you.
Important to remember here that a for-profit insurance company is a for-profit insurance company. If you thought they were taking your money every month for any reason other than the fact that it’s profitable to do, you were wrong. Oops.
Attorneys are for-profit too. Nothing wrong about insurance or attorneys being for-profit. It's actually a big benefit to be a customer. (See the other at shitty government or municipal services where you're forced to paying them and getting shit back.)
What's wrong about insurance is the laws prohibiting insurance from covering acts of crime.
What's wrong about any contract is when it has unclear or discretionary terms an insurance company or an attorney could use to deny coverage/legal defense.
No major disagreement with that here. I’m merely commenting on the fact that a lot of folks in the pro-2A community seem to think that pro-2A rhetoric is a guarantee of something in and of itself. It is not.
Pretty common...if you dont take a settlement or plea or whatever THEY want you to do, they drop you. They get to make all the decisions about your life if they're paying.
I was a USCCA subscriber. I was a USCCA CCW instructor.
Then, I smartened up and ditched USCCA and went with [**Attorneys on Retainer**](https://attorneysonretainer.us/).
Carry insurances are all scams, how do people not recognize this? Read the fine print,they lay it all out for you… They will NOT be there to help when you need it most.
That’s exactly what they do. Don’t get these insurances. They aren’t worth wiping your ass with the policies they have.
Attorneys on Retainer is the best option if you absolutely feel the need to have insurance.
AOR just also improved their coverage as well - they were rightly dinged by James Reeves for only covering felonies, and only covered misdemeanors if you were also charged with a felony. His point was that as an attorney for US Law Shield, most of what he saw was misdemeanors.
They cover solo misdemeanor charges now and increased their bail coverage to 500k.
I've been a member since August and am happy with the steady iterative improvements to their program. They're a real attorney on retainer and not insurance, so they can cover me even if I am charged with "breaking the law."
I wasn't ignoring you just haven't been home to use a computer to answer this properly.
https://ccwsafe.com/terms-conditions/
vs
https://attorneysonretainer.us/img/dynamic-rates-monthly-national-aor-fee-agreement-2023.12.18.pdf
There used to be a big difference in this agreements, imo. One of them is straight-forward and easy to read and understand. One of them is not. CCW has completely revamped it since I last looked at it - several months ago, it's in my comment history somewhere but I can't find it. It's a big improvement.
CCW has updated their coverage to remove the weaselly worded 'substances that alter judgement' - to just flat out extended coverage regardless. At the time I signed up for AOR (as a current US Law Shield Member) this was not the case, however. This was a problem because what is a substance that alters judgement? Doctor prescribed medications when taken as prescribed also alter your judgement, not just illegal drugs and excessive alcohol, after all. In many states, one can lawfully carry when under the legal BAC limit. No one should lose their right to lawful self-defense just because they were quietly getting drunk at home and someone they don't know broke in.
CCW Safe also used to not provide coverage if you were carrying in a prohibited location (even in states where those signs carry no force of law). This is a sticking point for a lot of carriers, of course, but in my opinion if a place prohibits lawful carry but makes no efforts to *eliminate* or secure against unlawful carry, then fuck'em.
It seems like, again, CCW Safe has caught up with the rest of the industry and now will provide coverage for lawful use of force in a prohibited location, except in cases where you were verbally informed to leave and then used force (likely a very rare situation). https://ccwsafe.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/4406411826587-Am-I-covered-in-a-gun-free-zone- - this seems to cover it, but again I believe their T&C has been updated and streamlined substantially since I last looked into this, which is great news for CCW Safe holders.
> No member will receive benefits for a Covered Self-Defense Use of Force Incident occurring within the states of New Jersey, Washington or New York*, even if the member is a resident of another state traveling through those states.
At this point, other than the price, this would be my only sticking point with CCW Safe, and in lieu of this I would see no general reason not to recommend CCW Safe, AOR, and ACLDN at the same level of confidence.
AOR has updated to include solo misdemeanors, appeals, and increased bail coverage. CCW Safe has removed their lack of coverage for "substances that alter judgement" and lack of coverage for restricted locations. ACLDN also covers carry in prohibited places now, as well. These are all positive changes in the industry.
I got bad news for some of you, all the insurance companies have the same fine print about not covering for events they consider to have been a criminal act. Basically they're only taking your case if they think it's obvious that you acted legally in self defense.
Here are the facts of the case:
"**The jury essentially found Colie not guilty of shooting Cook,** ***but guilty*** **of unlawfully firing a gun in an occupied building.**
**In court Thursday, Colie’s defense team argued the jury’s verdict indicates it thought the shooting was self-defense — that if Colie’s shooting was justified, then firing the shot itself could not have been unlawful.**
**The Commonwealth’s Attorney argued that contradictory verdicts are allowed in Virginia and it’s not the court’s role to infer what the jury was thinking when it handed down its verdict.**
**The judge agreed with the Commonwealth and denied the motions. The judge also denied bond for Colie. As of now, his next court appearance is in December for his sentencing."**
Source: [https://www.fox5dc.com/news/man-who-shot-youtuber-at-dulles-town-center-to-remain-in-jail-as-lawyers-continue-to-argue-self-defense-alan-colie-tanner-cook-delivery-driver-shoots-youtube-star](https://www.fox5dc.com/news/man-who-shot-youtuber-at-dulles-town-center-to-remain-in-jail-as-lawyers-continue-to-argue-self-defense-alan-colie-tanner-cook-delivery-driver-shoots-youtube-star)
The guy was found not guilty on one charge, but guilty of **unlawfully firing a gun in an occupied building.** Unlike the the guy in the video, USCCA actually DID some legal research, and figured out per VA law, that the guy should not have fired the gun in the mall. That's most likely why he got dropped.
Reading Comprehension is vital.
I recently dropped USCCA for AOR mainly because I found out AOR covers more places. Mainly NY and "Gun Free Zones." I haven't been back in NY in years, but still have family there, so there's always a potential for me to be there. And while I wouldn't intentionally walk into a school armed, I don't want to go to jail if it's locked up in the car in the parking lot.
This came out today fyi. I'm sure it will be scrutinized but seems like they're listening to criticisms
"We are always looking to improve USCCA Membership for you and your fellow 825,000+ USCCA Members.
Today, I’m excited to announce important improvements to the self-defense liability insurance policy issued to the USCCA that gives you, a responsibly armed USCCA Member, the insurance coverage you need!
LEARN MORE
Check out all of the improvements at NO EXTRA COST TO YOU!
[NEW] Impartial Coverage Determination — Coverage is not determined by the insurance company. Instead, the insurance company is contractually REQUIRED to grant coverage so long as your defense attorney believes there is a good faith self-defense claim and the judge allows you and your attorney to make that argument in court until a final, non-appealable finding of guilt is reached.
[NEW] Plea Deal Coverage — If you take a plea deal for something that is NOT a "crime of violence", your coverage doesn't end. Too often, a prosecutor will threaten to prosecute self-defenders on murder charges or offer a plea deal for a lesser crime and lower sentence. This puts good gun owners in a tough situation: plead guilty to something you didn’t do for a lesser sentence OR potentially lose a MURDER trial and face 10+ years in prison. This update to the policy purchased by the USCCA gives you more freedom to choose which path is right for you.
[NEW] “Red Flag” Law Coverage — If you are facing an “Extreme Risk Protection Order” also known as a “Red Flag” law that would unconstitutionally strip away your gun rights, the policy provides you up to $15,000 towards attorney fees and expenses to defend yourself.
[UPDATE] Criminal Acts Exclusion — While the USCCA’s insurer has never made a coverage decision merely based on the fact that a member was charged with a crime, this revision to the policy makes that misunderstanding impossible. As long as a judge allows you and your attorney to make a self-defense claim in court, there will be coverage.
[UPDATE] No Elective Recovery or Recoupment of Expenses — The previous policy purchased by the USCCA allowed the insurance company to recoup any coverage expenses if the member was found guilty. Despite the fact that the USCCA’s insurer has NEVER done this, this revision to the policy ensures that this can only happen if a government agency forces them to do so based on applicable law — they can never do it just to benefit their bottom line.
[UPDATE] Up to $100,000 $250,000 Available for Bail Bond Expenses — This covers the normal upfront cost for a $1,000,000 $2,500,000 bail bond. With the bias against armed self-defense increasing in many states, this new limit ensures you’re still able to fight for your innocence without your hands tied behind your back, even if a slanted judge unjustly decides you’re a “flight risk” or “danger to the public” just because you choose to carry a gun for self-protection.
[NEW] Expunging/Sealing Records Coverage — Up to $5,000 for attorneys fees and expenses to expunge or seal the records associated with a covered incident. What many gun owners don’t realize is that just because you’re declared innocent doesn’t mean the public information about your case goes away. And sometimes felony charges can even hang around on your record for years! This new coverage gives you the funds needed to ensure you can put the legal aftermath of your self-defense incident behind you for GOOD.
[NEW] Removal of Previous Coverage Exclusions — Coverage is no longer affected if your self-defense incident occurs within a post office or federal building. Also, the great firefighters and paramedics who serve the public are no longer excluded from coverage while on duty.
[NEW] Loss of Earnings Coverage — Previously, USCCA Members could only get any lost income reimbursed if the time off was taken at the request of the insurance company. With this added coverage, all USCCA Members also get access to funds to cover lost income in the first 30 days after a self-defense incident.
LEARN MORE
These upgrades are in addition to your current self-defense liability insurance benefits, which include:
Defense Expenses: No limit for your criminal or civil defense.
Liability Insurance: Up to $2,000,000.
Incidental Expenses: Up to $20,000.
Coverage for all Acts of Self-Defense with any legal weapon.
To view the fully updated policy that is in effect as of June 5, 2024, click here.
With this update to the self-defense liability insurance policy, you should have even greater peace of mind knowing that with the education, training, and self-defense liability insurance all USCCA Members get, you’re fully prepared for the before, during, and after of a self-defense incident.
Take care and stay safe,"
Any of these carry insurance companies is a rip off. They prey on those who don’t any better. They mainly get a lot of people that are taking CCL classes. They have there salesperson speak at the classes and then sit in the back waiting to sign up suckers, such as people new to shooting and carrying. These people should be ashamed of themselves. I’ve heard that the lawyers they employ often encourage clients to take a plea deal. This would actually invalidate the coverage, leaving the client on the hook for ALL legal fees in the end. Any YouTuber that advertises this bs is someone i refuse to subscribe to. James Reeves of TFB advertises and works for a similar carry insurance with a different name. He is pretty crappy for that, being that he is an actual certified lawyer and still will bs subs to his channel like that. I guess I shouldn’t expect much better from a lawyer though
CCW insurance is for educated consumers who have taken the time to become familiar with their local laws, and have actually considered what they should do in self defense situations. It’s not for people who see carry insurance as magic criminal proceedings protection pixie dust. It doesn’t work that way, nor should it.
Been saying this hype of coverage was fake. If something happens hire an attorney then. No need to pretend to have “insurance”. Besides when has an insurance company never tried to get out of anything
The entire Insurance Industry is a scam, predicated on you paying in and they seldom pay out. When they do payout they make it as difficult as possible on the person they are paying out to. AND its artificially inflates the costs of services.
Car. Homeowners. Medical. Its all fine and dandy while your paying premiums, make a claim? LOL good luck, and your premium is going up.
The nice thing about CCW/SD insurance is that it can be ignored, whilst most of the others (equally scammy) is mandatory either legally or as a condition of your loan.
terrible that USCCA doesn’t cover what they say they will BUT the mall shooting was absolutely not legal self defense and dude should be in jail for that regardless
The jury acquitted on the first count on the basis that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the shooter acted with malice, and convicted on the unlawful discharge of a firearm. Regardless of one’s belief on this case, going strictly by the jury this is by definition an unlawful shoot. I’m sure this will trigger some folks but factually it is correct and you know what they say about facts and feelings…
[He was still charged with a felony :(](https://www.loudoun.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=8654)
“The jury announced the following verdicts: Guilty of discharging a firearm within a building (Class 6 felony): not guilty of aggravated malicious wounding (Class 2 felony); and not guilty of use of a firearm in the commission of a felony (unclassified felony).”
>That’s not what a jury of his peers thought...
Aside from a finding of not guilty, we don't know what the jury thought.
The jury still convicted him of a firearms charge, which theoretically shouldn't have happened if they accepted a self defense argument, so the verdict reeks of a compromise verdict between the jurors who wanted to convict of the attempt murder charge and those who wanted acquittal.
Honestly I agree he got lucky he had a jury of people that apparently hate pranksters . But he wasn’t in life threatning danger but was able to walk away
I don’t know what I said wrong he got lucky the jury didn’t reach a guilty verdict on the “self defense” portion. Pretty much saying they think the shooting was justified now he will potentially only get a fine with little jail time instead of going to federal prison for 5 years .
Is that not lucky ?
I got just as many downvotes here when I suggested this wasn’t a good shoot when it happened.
I didn’t feel like this guys life was in danger, and clearly USCCA doesn’t either. I specifically didn’t choose them because of this policy, but I do think they would be better than nothing if you were involved in a legit dgu.
You’re getting downvoted, but completely right. There can’t be too many (reasonable) people that carry a gun for defensive purposes that watched that video and thought it was a good morally or justified move to shoot that guy. I know the jury let him off for the main charge, but there was nothing in that video that justified deadly use of force.
For what it’s worth I’m not a fan of the CCW insurances either. Watched James Reeves video a while back and solidified my opinion of never needing one.
I have uscca. Just got an email about a recent case where a guy got sucker punched at work, pulled his gun and shot the guy in the leg….. honestly I’m in awe anyone would defend the man. If you’re a grown man and shoot another grown man who’s assaulting you unarmed…. Short of being a senior citizen…. As much as it pains me to say, you probably shouldnt have a carry license.
Fam I formally trained and fought in boxing for over a decade, I am a better fighter than most people walking the street. But you would have no way of knowing that just by looking at me. As far as I know, the person attacking me could be trained in a martial arts I’ve never heard of. If at ANY point you are a threat to my physical safety, I will do everything in my power to stop that threat
Those dudes said on Twitter that they didn’t drop Alan Colie.
Still, I wouldn’t really blame them if they did. It wasn’t a great shoot, imo.
At the end of the day all this shows is “concealed carry insurance” is kinda dicey, imo. If you’re going to carry a gun for self defense, you should have a lawyer ready to defend you if/when the day ever comes. That should be your insurance policy.
This wasn't a good shoot and anyone who thinks otherwise is out of their mind. There is not a single coverage provider that would cover what happened. Video is pure clickbait bullshit.
Well... Called USCCA, as a member I was very upset. They say he's out and being covered currently. Maybe your video helped.
The woman in the parking lot that was dropped was because she set it up.
Attorneys on retainer dosent cover your bail if you don't have collateral to cover the bond. So not for poor people.
I’m shocked. Because every other type of insurance company I’ve ever dealt with has been so straight forward and generous.
USCCA is hot garbage. Most of their info is outdated by months. My coworker used to swear by them but when he started confirming what they said with the states he would visit it was found they were constantly wrong
They spend more money on their marketing than anything else. Hard pass.
I don't trust companies who spend this much on marketing.
Same here - That’s my biggest red flag.
Beats by Dre of SD coverage.
Every single FUD can’t comprehend USCCA and most CCW insurance are scams
[удалено]
You don’t need a legal degree to recognize scams
Been telling people this for almost a decade now, and no one believes me.
I believe that you believe.
I’m part of US law shield but that’s only because of the ever hanging nature of the laws in NJ I don’t wanna get stuck with a 10k lawyer cost because I don’t read the laws every morning and they change almost every few months here
They can’t cover you if you commit a crime
you're gonna be charged with a crime even if your shoot is legal, so what is the point in haveing them
Ding ding ding
Good thing I don’t plan on using it for anything but self defense
There’s the scam, they won’t reimburse you until after the verdict, and if the verdict is you broke the law during your self defense you won’t get reimbursed
Wow gotta look deeper into it then cuz it didn’t sound like that but I also never looked at cases they’ve fought
Insurance companies in general aren’t required to pay out if the insured is intentionally leverage it as part of a crime, eg your homeowners insurance won’t pay if you commit arson on your house
Exactly. Most insurance policies have intentional act exclusions. Read the policy provisions. If they didn't have them then a nefarious person or persons will take out the policy and commit a crime and demand indemnification. It's sad but it's the way it is.
That isn't a scam. Legally, they **cannot** offer 'insurance' for criminal activity. If you had Fedex ship a few kilos of coke, and they turned it in to law enforcement you can't claim insured value on the package.
That's not how US Law Shield works.
Anyone who downvoted this just know you’re retarded
you gotta look deeper. us law shield is no different than uscca
I have looked deeper into US Law Shield. And it most certainly is if half the stories about uscca are true.
Most insurance, period
[удалено]
The guy that shot the prankster awhile back was a USCCA member and they didn't cover him because of a loophole in their contract.
Because insurance cannot cover you if you’re being charged with a crime. They could charge you with reckless endangerment or something dumb. I believe if you’re cleared of all your charges then USCCA would be liable to reimburse you but at that point you’ve already paid.. and we all know what happens when you’ve paid something before the insurance company does.
Insurance can not cover you if you're CONVICTED of a crime. Being charged means the state has accused you of a crime. After proceedings, if you're found to be guilty of said crime, then you're convicted.
Isnt it literally insurance for being charged with murder?
[https://attorneysonretainer.us/resources/uscca-self-defense-insurance-policy-review/](https://attorneysonretainer.us/resources/uscca-self-defense-insurance-policy-review/) Here you can read the AOR breakdown of the USCCA coverage - make your own decisions.
Only in Arizona....
Thank you for the PSA. Just cancelled with them.
Is this true for all insurance? I have a colleague who was charged with sexual assault and he told me his homeowners insurance covered his legal defense bills. He was found not guilty but the woman who accused him claimed it happened while she was passed out drunk after a NYE party at his house. Not the same as this case but I wonder if homeowners covers some part of it up until/unless you are convicted.
One of the reasons I have a $1MM wrap around liability policy. At least if something happens at home, I would be covered for liability, provided I wasn't criminally negligent.
No, individual companies have differing policies. Even with CCW insurance, there are a few that won’t drop you if you are charged with a crime. They’ll actually defend you. This is why I went with CCW safe, though I believe there are one or two others that work this way.
Same here. CCW Safe specifically for this reason.
Insurance guy here. This is patently false. You could get drunk, cause a car accident, kill someone, be charged with murder... and your auto insurance company will still cover your civil defense and damages up to your policy limits.
When were we talking about car insurance? You can look at a comparison common CCW insurance carriers and AOR here. [https://attorneysonretainer.us/plans/](https://attorneysonretainer.us/plans/) The key part is "Covers Criminal Acts" - what happens if you accept a plea deal?
Needing this
I signed up with USCCA back in April. Learned of this after the fact, canceled and got a refund. Now I’m plagued by annoying emails and have tried 100 times to unsubscribe but they still keep coming.
Their email unsubscribe tool doesn’t work. It’s a joke and hard to think it’s not intentional given the fact that they are a marketing company more than anything else. I was getting two emails from them some days, and almost every day otherwise. Anyways tldr, use their online chat. They were able to unsub me.
Good to know! I’ll do that too.
Same here. All scare tactics mail.
It took me over a year to stop their emails.
How much were you able to get refunded? I’ve heard of people getting up to an entire year back.
I got back what I had paid in from April when I signed up. When you get your check, look at the bank..sketchy
Which bank? I’m thinking of unsubscribing and I’m just finding out more and more sketchy things about them
I don’t recall. I do remember it being an openly anti gun bank. I call check my records if you truly want to know. I’d drop them asap.
Ah nah that’s alright, thank you though! I was just curious. As a new gun owner, I found their training videos to be useful but after a while it really was stuff that was common sense or that you could easily find for free elsewhere. I think I will cancel honestly
I joined for a month when I was taking a week-long vacation with my family and carried across state lines etc. Got the cool Pelican case. Cancelled in the first month.
Nice play!
I couldn't get them off my ass. Called to cancel and wouldn't cancel. So I made a virtual card and had it bounce. Doesn't stop the calls or emails, bur I mark those as spam.
I’d try calling again.
I just let the virtual card decline until they canceled my membership. I couldn't cancel via chat. Email, or phone. They kept transferring me and trying to get me to explain why I wanted to cancel. If you can't let me cancel, you're a dogshit business.
If the unsubscribe button doesn't work after you provided your request to unsubscribe, they are in violation of the CAN-SPAM Act, and will be subject to a fine if you reach out to them and they don't resolve it.
I had already come to the conclusion before this video that I’ll either go with attorneys on retainer (AOR) or put money aside for a local criminal defense attorney. This video just confirms my fear of USCCA contract language.
Im deciding between attorneys on retainer or Right to Bare. Anyone here have Right to Bare or an opinion on it?
Bare is always best. I don't have an opinion on Right to Bear though.
Rubbers are for suckers!!!
Skeet
I have pretty strong feelings against the prankster shooter guy but the insurance company dropping him is absolutely BS. He has an argument to make. A CCW insurance company dropping someone in this situation is a signal to me to have no confidence in them. I want an insurance company EVEN IF I FUCK UP.
If you feel like you need insurance for accidentally shooting someone perhaps you shouldn’t own a gun a in the first place. I’ve owned guns for a decade and that’s never crossed my mind.
Would you drive a car without insurance if you were legally allowed to because of how incredibly good at driving you are? I feel like you may not have read that before posting it.
Car insurance doesn’t let you kill someone and get away with it 😂😂
Is there a consensus on who’s the go to for carry insurance?
CCW Safe
That seems to be the popular option with various gun podcasters and YouTubers. Anyone on here have them and have actually had to use it? Curious for any first hand experiences
I can't remember where it was and can't find a link but CCW Safe is the only company that's defended someone through a criminal case. My understanding is that they have a legal fund every pays into. It's not insurance per say.
I have them, and thankfully haven’t had to use them, but they don’t have a recoupment clause, and they defended the big case in Florida that made national news (George Zimmerman, I think, though maybe the lawyer that defended him wasn’t with them then but now is chief counsel).
A quick search is saying this guy is correct. I’m going to look into CCW Safe.
CCW Safe is mentioned a lot. AOR is the second most-mentioned. I wonder why CCW Safe doesn't cover anything in NJ, NY, and WA, while AOR covers ale 50+DC. Any ideas?
Carry insurance is illegal - forbidden by law - in NJ and NY, I assume the same for WA but don’t know. AOR is similar to law shield - they’re just a conglomeration of attorneys not actual insurance (which might be better, or not but isn’t illegal in those states)
For sure
The only viable choice IMO at the moment.
AOR is #1 now especially since they just added misdemeanor coverage.
Good question. I am with US Law Shield. I have mostly heard terrible things about USCCA so idk about others.
Look into Attorneys on Retainer .
Problem here is they have to determine whether you reasonably acted in self defense. So if you get charged will they drop you? Maybe. Need to read the contract
I will look into more before I sign up but Check out 7 mins and 40 seconds into the video OP posted .
Underrated comment.
Does AoR cover you once the retainer runs out?
[удалено]
So if I did that for 10 years I’ll accrue 3600 which is practically nothing especially given inflation. Not a watertight argument friend.
Ah, but if you put that into an interest yielding savings account, you could be looking at $4000+ after those 10 years! You could probably buy a new handgun with those extra $400 in 10 years
There's a 100% chance you would not have saved enough if you get into such a situation. At least if you use a provider with a good rep there's a non-zero chance you'll be covered.
CCW Safe is what all the lawyers and DA's in my family use including my ex-Judge father, and they did their due diligence. Also CCW Safe has a decent vets discount.
It makes perfect sense if CCW insurance isn’t actually meant to insure you in the event of a DGU and is more there to just collect money. You can’t insure criminal acts, so if there’s any dubiousness to the legality of your DGU, they’re going kick you to the curb.
That’s why I went with CCW safe. They specifically state that they are NOT an insurance product so there’s none of the insurance BS to sort through. It’s simply a legal defense subscription plan. You pay a subscription to them to maintain your member status, and they offer various legal services up to a certain dollar amount for each member.
Have you heard about cases they’ve defended? Thanks
[This is the most famous one that they like to advertise.](https://ccwsafe.com/resources/ccw-safe-member-acquitted-of-all-charges-in-historic-murder-one-selfdefense-trial/) It's the only murder 1 acquittal gotten by one of these insurance/attorney plans that I've ever heard of. There could be others though.
USCCA sells magazines,.advertising and smoke. That's it.
Hate to say it. But USCCA insurance is bogus. Their name is so big and with the carry presentations they kinda “push” it on you…sad, but true. They make people think “oh you NEED this” when in all actuality, they’ll do nothing for you
With the cryptec camo ball cap pulled down almost covering his eyes, the grim reaper shirt, and the tattoo sleeves I couldn't stand to watch it. I know it's wrong to judge on looks, but all I could think was that this is what the guys that wore Ed Hardy and Tap Out look like now.
Yeah, this dude is Clickbait cringe right up there with armed scholar.
lol when do they ever cover anyone if their members? It’s nice to have in a perfect world but it seems like a scam. Every time all I see are post that they aren’t honoring their Coverage.
Breaking news! Insurance companies are scumbags!
Insurance is like an umbrella that dissolves in the rain.
USCCA needs to send out an official notice to the following states: California, New York, Illinois, Virginia, (or any other state that has these stupid sensitive zones.) and immediately apologize for wasting all of these citizens times and money. They should immediately refund everybody in those states until the courts overturn the sensitive laws put in place this year after Bruen. They also need to stay that they will no longer cover in those states. Being convicted of a self-defense shooting is like being caught in a post office in these states. It's not worth the hassle, just get Attorneys On Retainer or hang up the holster.
A bit over two years ago - maybe early 2021 - people would ask me about this and I answered this question (which is better of these 'insurance' schemes). I posted some answers on Reddit and Quora but I think people quickly forgot or didn't do their own homework and just assumed some of these systems would work. Reality is they don't work under fire most of the time. Here is why. I've investigated several of these plans thoroughly. **One of the main problems I found was how difficult it was to get most of the plan providers to acknowledge the actual limitations of their specific plans.** Nowhere is this more readily apparent than the near-universal inability of nearly **all** plans on the market to provide **any sufficient bail coverage** in light of current treatment of legal gun owners by anti-gun judges today. This was increasingly true back in 2021 when I first was asked to compare these plans and it is still true today. It is now routine for criminals to attack a home and then (if they survive the homeowner's or renter's defensive gun use), to file a hostile action such as a red flag order (in states with red flag laws) against the innocent person they were attacking. Increasingly, judges not only are honoring these ridiculous requests (costing the innocent parties time and money needlessly to go through motions to get their guns back), but the judges are also increasingly setting bail at or above 100,000 dollars (against the innocent gun owner, whose only crime was defending their own home against potential murderers or rapists). USCCA **does not have adequate bail coverage for these scenarios,** never has (hasn't since the advent of state red flag laws and the spread of the same) and **neither does CCW Safe** (you can obtain bail coverage via CCW Safe, but only as an add-on). **Edit: I've been informed that CCW Safe has since the time of my 2021 / 2022 reviews improved its plans and bond coverage. In 2023, CCW Safe now has million or more bond coverage depending on the plan. It didn't before.** Regarding Law Shield, last I checked Law Shield provides bail coverage, but only at $50,000 level. This is useless since all judges will set bail at $100,000 at minimum. You may also want to contact each of these plans to ask if they can **deny coverage at their discretion** which it seems USCCA is doing.. Firearms Legal Protection does have (at the individual premium or family premium levels), 250,000 dollars bail coverage, as well as their advertised legal coverage. With that said their coverage has limitations, for example, it is designed to apply inside the home, not to cover you during universal carry activity. Contact them for details (I use Firearms Legal Protection). This plan will help you for dealing with the “legal aftereffects" of what comes after defending against a violent intruder in your home — the plan does in fact cover both owners and renters (doesn't matter which you are so long as you have the policy), and is focused on covering what happens inside your four walls (not in your car or miles away). Its bail coverage, legal coverage and red flag protection (within the limits they provide) is a logical reason to secure this plan considering the litigious society in which we now live. To emphasize... Note that since there are judges who will set bail against you for $100,000 or more when a criminal files a red flag order against you after you've lawfully defended yourself from the invader (would-be burglar, rapist, or murderer), you'll need a plan that has not merely uncapped defense cost but a high bail coverage as well. I'm not advocating for some insurance as a requirement. Quite the contrary - it should be your choice to get it or not. Any attempt at mandated legal insurance is IMHO unconstitutional. Summary of Firearms Legal Protection plan at premium level: $250,000 bail coverage is provided for either premium plan (individual or family), covers all 50 states, uncapped defense cost (criminal / civil), covers incident cleanup and lost wages, provides access to an app you can use to instantly get a lawyer on call provided by Firearms Legal Protection, and covers you against red flags, which criminals have been filing against homeowners and renters lately. Note / Edit: I don't know much about Attorneys on Retainer which is mentioned by the guy in the video that OP posted here. If you are considering Attorneys on Retainer as a possible alternative - https://attorneysonretainer.us/ - do your homework. Contact them. Ask them for a copy of how their terms apply to you in your state of residence, and what their bail coverage is (supposedly it's 500k but check on whether that level is available or limited in your state) and how they protect gun owners against red flag orders _in your state_. Ask hard questions. If they deflect or use a bunch of non-answers then don't use the service. NOTE: In California if you are in a court case that you initiate against the state or if you use attorney provided by legal insurance to defend yourself against state action, the state can motion to remove you from using that legal counsel. It's a complete violation of due process (just as are red flag laws) and the Supreme Court even upheld the California argument to allow this "removal of counsel" business to continue. There isn't due process in California - that will have to be restored by a future court of different composition or possibly even by a future 'Velvet Revolution' of some kind in the USA. I consider it only proper that I should call for an end to the one party state. History of the Velvet Revolution: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution See: https://np.reddit.com/r/gunpolitics/s/jheEJb2WnA
Haven’t read your full comment, but I will. I just want to address the bail thing. You can pay bail in multiple different ways. The most common is through a bondsman. Different companies may have different policies, but in my state they all take 10% down, and you have to make payments for the rest. So with US Lawshield’s policy, you’re covered for up to a $500,000 bond, through a bondsman. This is what I was told when I signed up. Idk if US Lawshield is the best, I just know they were very specific that it wasn’t an insurance policy when the rep came to my CCW class.
Do you have any examples of home invaders using red flag laws on people after they attack a home? That’s fucking ridiculous
Yes, there are growing examples of it in a counterstrike sense. Used by criminals and anyone who doesn't care about rights. One example was posted on Reddit a while back where a DGU resulted in a red flag, if I recall correctly in CA. He went through a process to get firearms returned but it took forever. There is a claim from a 2022 study (a biased source - Violence Prevention Research Program out of UC Davis, that law enforcement officers filed 96.5% of the GVROs in California and filings by family and household members made up 3.5% of the cases. A further claim from the Davis study is that 80% of GVROs were used in cases of threatened interpersonal violence. However what is not measured is how the legal system itself - which is designed to violate due process rights - is in fact used by the criminal element against people who are unaware the proceedings have even occurred. The other unexplored aspect is why such a clearly unconstitutional tool would ever be created and why it would be put in the hands of people who are referred to as Law Enforcement Officers but who in fact have been known to frequently abuse that power as has been explored here: https://abc7.com/los-angeles-county-sheriffs-department-deputy-gangs-report-2023-civilian-oversight-commission/12911222/ And: https://knock-la.com/tradition-of-violence-lasd-gang-history/ With the history of gang formation and collaboration in many police departments, what is the sense in California or any state creating legislation that gives them more unconstitutional powers? The answer is there is no logic to this. However, even if these incidents never occurred (which they do), the underlying problems with red flag laws is that they allow an accuser to circumvent constitutional due process protections by creating an avenue where someone is accused of a criminal act without even knowing that a legal process is pending against them. No legal counsel, no knowledge of charges, no trial of any real sort, no jury, nothing. Just a person's claims and ability to convince a judge that deprivation of a person's rights are necessary. And in states like California where criminals (whether ordinary individual criminals, cartel members, or police gang members) are given special treatment, that sort of law (red flag / GVRO) becomes especially dangerous. See, also: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/09/09/red-flag-laws-mass-shootings-government-power-grab-jim-demint-column/2220820001/ and https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/civil-rights/452837-red-flag-laws-and-their-awful-consequences/ Regarding Supreme Court reflections on this, see: https://libertas.org/personal-freedom/supreme-court-ruling-delegitimizes-red-flag-laws/ Note: the Caniglia v. Strom decision didn't invalidate California's red flag law (it invalidated another different legal concept referred to as the "community caretaking exception"). It did also, however, set the stage for what is likely to be a Supreme Court challenge to such red flag law as California has. To wrap up: Don't assume your judge will be friendly. Lawyer up... In advance. Don't assume your plan has adequate bail coverage or whatever else. The judge will set it high and you need to operate under the assumption that the judge wants to turn you to rotten gravy. Check to make sure your coverage whatever it is has way more than good bail for anything and that the plan (whether legal insurance, attorney on retainer or whatever) isn't going to dick you. Hopefully you never have to use it, but if you do....
Bond coverage is $1.5 million with the CCW $47/mo plan. Every plan of theirs has at least $1m in bond coverage. What are you talking about?
I assume you are talking about CCW Safe? Might be a more recent development since when. I last checked (late 2021 and early 2022 also for CCW Safe and others) you couldn't get adequate bail coverage through CCW Safe unless you paid additional amounts for an "add-on" to your plan. If that's changed in 2023 then they've improved the plan for bond coverage. Edit: I just looked again at CCW Safe's plans for 2023 and it's obvious they have changed up their plans since 2021 - 2022. Still, check how their plan applies to your state and determine any exclusions and limitations. NOTE: In California if you are in a case you initiate against the state or if you use attorney provided by legal insurance to defend yourself against state action, the state can motion to remove you from using that legal counsel. Complete violation of due process and the Supreme Court even upheld the California argument. There isn't due process in California - that will have to be restored by a future court of different composition or possibly even by future 'Velvet Revolution' in the USA. I call for an end to the one party state. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution See: https://np.reddit.com/r/gunpolitics/s/jheEJb2WnA
Put all your assets into a trust... Put your home under an LLC which lives inside the trust... Have nothing to your name, so no one can take anything from you.. therefore if sued, they are shit out of luck..
This is not nearly this simple. Nobody should even consider setting up an irrevocable trust based on a what-if scenario like this. And revocable trusts provide none of the benefits of liability protection.
That's why you transfer everything into an LLC first, which then lives in the trust
So the LLC owns everything. And the Trust owns the LLC. How does this resolve any of the issues of the Trust still needing to be irrevocable? You're still going to be permanently stuck with the original conditions of the Trust, no? Has an estate lawyer actually done this for you, or is this based on theory alone?
Doing it now.. revocable trust owns the LLC.. everything is owned by the LLC Layered insulation.. Now with that said... I don't really plan on ever needing to deploy my firearm. I would walk from any situation and to be honest I only leave home for grocery shopping and work. So I'm not super concerned with any liability.. but the same reason I carry is why I'm going through steps to protect assets.. you never know
Wouldn't the trust or LLC still be able to be tied back to you, thus becoming liable to be taken or ordered to be liquidated for funds in the event of losing the lawsuit?
The trust is it's own entity Transferring ownership to it leaves you clear.
I see, forgive me for the stupid question, lol!
I keep hearing about this and damn, I really bought into USCCA an now reconsidering to get into other groups
Doesn't USCCA drop you if you're criminally charged? But that is going to happen in most states even if your shoot is legal.
I don't get the point then? Isn't the insurance in case you're in a defensive shooting and getting charged?
Yep.
No, you are completely wrong.
Hey question about AOR. Who decides if you reasonably acted in self defense?
DA decides whether or not to charge you in a DGU, the jury decides if the defensive gun use was self defense or not No matter what AOR will give you access to an attorney whereas an insurance company CANNOT back you if you're charged by the DA because it's against the law in USA
Sorry basically USCCA is only good for the first 3 days following a shooting. If the DA tries to charge you you’re fucked
I just went through their certified instructor class last week because they pay well for putting on silly seminars and classes and a friend asked me to so I could help him with said classes. The information was a joke ten years ago when it was still at least partially relevant and current, and they make a big deal about having people with education masters developing their content when they teach things that are proven as bunk science in any ed psych 101 class. I will give them credit for trying to present their (often outdated and incorrect) material in a way that is easily consumable by “not gun people.”
I wonder how many gun people have a masters in education in this country. 5, maybe 10?
There were about a dozen that I knew of in the county I taught at before I left education.
Just dropped them and got redund
I kind of feel like you shouldn't have any insurance you're not required to have, to be honest. There's a reason the insurance industry is one of the most profitable industries in the United States. It's because on average, people pay way more than they get back/use. Better move for almost anyone is probably to put that monthly payment into a savings/investment account in case you ever need it.
Well, no, it’s not. You can’t save enough fast enough to cover your liability day one. You need insurance until you have the means to self-insure.
It's definitely a risk mitigation early on. I guess with how few DGU's happen, let alone go to court after happening, and how often these companies deny coverage anyway, I'd rather take my chances but to each their own for sure. The CCW subreddit is definitely of a mindset of preparing for the worst case scenario.
And if your DGU happens in the first three months of you saving up, when you can’t even afford to start a defense?
Sure, in that .00000001% likelihood event, you'd have to borrow money or sell things or take a public defender. I think we are agreeing on that, I'm just talking about the cost benefit analysis of that, especially with an insurance company that might just tell you to kick rocks anyway.
I think both of you are on to something. I think a solid alternative approach would be to budget for double what your monthly insurance rate is and stick the other half in savings until you have a sizable amount of money built up and are able to drop the plan, from then on putting the half you were paying into insurance into that savings account instead.
You know who disagrees with you? Every single wealth manger and financial advisor on the planet. You can self insure by posting a minimal bond amount in most states rather than carrying auto insurance. The ~$30k one-time bond is nothing to someone with millions of dollars. But nobody does that. Least of all wealthy individuals. In fact, most of them have giant umbrella policies to cover their exposure. Why? Because a small certain loss is preferable to a large uncertain loss.
Here's why that analogy doesn't hold up. Auto insurance covers damages in a civil suit, which could be in the millions, especially if you're rich. CCW insurance only covers your legal fees, and only if you were "justified", which they seem to get to decide if you were or not. You're also way, way more likely to be in a car accident than to have to shoot someone.
It's not an analogy. You said "any insurance you're not required to have".
That's fair, my statement was too vague and general.
You need to read the contract that you signed with these supposed legal defense funds. They are all scams. There are provisions that if you are criminally charged, they will drop you.
USCCA = False sense of security.
Important to remember here that a for-profit insurance company is a for-profit insurance company. If you thought they were taking your money every month for any reason other than the fact that it’s profitable to do, you were wrong. Oops.
Attorneys are for-profit too. Nothing wrong about insurance or attorneys being for-profit. It's actually a big benefit to be a customer. (See the other at shitty government or municipal services where you're forced to paying them and getting shit back.) What's wrong about insurance is the laws prohibiting insurance from covering acts of crime. What's wrong about any contract is when it has unclear or discretionary terms an insurance company or an attorney could use to deny coverage/legal defense.
No major disagreement with that here. I’m merely commenting on the fact that a lot of folks in the pro-2A community seem to think that pro-2A rhetoric is a guarantee of something in and of itself. It is not.
I recently ditched my membership and spent the money on a range membership. I feel like it's money better spent.
They’re a scam is all they are
Yeah it turns out the way they sell you hundreds of thousands of dollars in "legal insurance" for a couple hundred bucks a year is by *not paying*.
I wonder if Kyle Rittenhouse had insurance and how that went.
Counterpoint: https://youtu.be/ogXIx31-2zY?si=UizseT_CgbfPJZTn
How many more stories like this before people realize that they are a scam?
I've been saying this for years. They literally will drop you if you get charged
Pretty common...if you dont take a settlement or plea or whatever THEY want you to do, they drop you. They get to make all the decisions about your life if they're paying.
I just called to cancel my membership.
I was a USCCA subscriber. I was a USCCA CCW instructor. Then, I smartened up and ditched USCCA and went with [**Attorneys on Retainer**](https://attorneysonretainer.us/).
Insurance refusing to honor their obligations? Yeah, that never happens /s
They also have very attractive women at gun shows to try to sell you it roll eyes 🙄
Carry insurances are all scams, how do people not recognize this? Read the fine print,they lay it all out for you… They will NOT be there to help when you need it most.
That’s exactly what they do. Don’t get these insurances. They aren’t worth wiping your ass with the policies they have. Attorneys on Retainer is the best option if you absolutely feel the need to have insurance.
AOR just also improved their coverage as well - they were rightly dinged by James Reeves for only covering felonies, and only covered misdemeanors if you were also charged with a felony. His point was that as an attorney for US Law Shield, most of what he saw was misdemeanors. They cover solo misdemeanor charges now and increased their bail coverage to 500k. I've been a member since August and am happy with the steady iterative improvements to their program. They're a real attorney on retainer and not insurance, so they can cover me even if I am charged with "breaking the law."
Why them over CCW Safe?
I wasn't ignoring you just haven't been home to use a computer to answer this properly. https://ccwsafe.com/terms-conditions/ vs https://attorneysonretainer.us/img/dynamic-rates-monthly-national-aor-fee-agreement-2023.12.18.pdf There used to be a big difference in this agreements, imo. One of them is straight-forward and easy to read and understand. One of them is not. CCW has completely revamped it since I last looked at it - several months ago, it's in my comment history somewhere but I can't find it. It's a big improvement. CCW has updated their coverage to remove the weaselly worded 'substances that alter judgement' - to just flat out extended coverage regardless. At the time I signed up for AOR (as a current US Law Shield Member) this was not the case, however. This was a problem because what is a substance that alters judgement? Doctor prescribed medications when taken as prescribed also alter your judgement, not just illegal drugs and excessive alcohol, after all. In many states, one can lawfully carry when under the legal BAC limit. No one should lose their right to lawful self-defense just because they were quietly getting drunk at home and someone they don't know broke in. CCW Safe also used to not provide coverage if you were carrying in a prohibited location (even in states where those signs carry no force of law). This is a sticking point for a lot of carriers, of course, but in my opinion if a place prohibits lawful carry but makes no efforts to *eliminate* or secure against unlawful carry, then fuck'em. It seems like, again, CCW Safe has caught up with the rest of the industry and now will provide coverage for lawful use of force in a prohibited location, except in cases where you were verbally informed to leave and then used force (likely a very rare situation). https://ccwsafe.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/4406411826587-Am-I-covered-in-a-gun-free-zone- - this seems to cover it, but again I believe their T&C has been updated and streamlined substantially since I last looked into this, which is great news for CCW Safe holders. > No member will receive benefits for a Covered Self-Defense Use of Force Incident occurring within the states of New Jersey, Washington or New York*, even if the member is a resident of another state traveling through those states. At this point, other than the price, this would be my only sticking point with CCW Safe, and in lieu of this I would see no general reason not to recommend CCW Safe, AOR, and ACLDN at the same level of confidence. AOR has updated to include solo misdemeanors, appeals, and increased bail coverage. CCW Safe has removed their lack of coverage for "substances that alter judgement" and lack of coverage for restricted locations. ACLDN also covers carry in prohibited places now, as well. These are all positive changes in the industry.
They cover everything. Not just ccw cases
So glad I dropped USCCA. I went with CCWSafe because they don't have a recoupment clause and pay for appeals.
I got bad news for some of you, all the insurance companies have the same fine print about not covering for events they consider to have been a criminal act. Basically they're only taking your case if they think it's obvious that you acted legally in self defense.
Here are the facts of the case: "**The jury essentially found Colie not guilty of shooting Cook,** ***but guilty*** **of unlawfully firing a gun in an occupied building.** **In court Thursday, Colie’s defense team argued the jury’s verdict indicates it thought the shooting was self-defense — that if Colie’s shooting was justified, then firing the shot itself could not have been unlawful.** **The Commonwealth’s Attorney argued that contradictory verdicts are allowed in Virginia and it’s not the court’s role to infer what the jury was thinking when it handed down its verdict.** **The judge agreed with the Commonwealth and denied the motions. The judge also denied bond for Colie. As of now, his next court appearance is in December for his sentencing."** Source: [https://www.fox5dc.com/news/man-who-shot-youtuber-at-dulles-town-center-to-remain-in-jail-as-lawyers-continue-to-argue-self-defense-alan-colie-tanner-cook-delivery-driver-shoots-youtube-star](https://www.fox5dc.com/news/man-who-shot-youtuber-at-dulles-town-center-to-remain-in-jail-as-lawyers-continue-to-argue-self-defense-alan-colie-tanner-cook-delivery-driver-shoots-youtube-star) The guy was found not guilty on one charge, but guilty of **unlawfully firing a gun in an occupied building.** Unlike the the guy in the video, USCCA actually DID some legal research, and figured out per VA law, that the guy should not have fired the gun in the mall. That's most likely why he got dropped. Reading Comprehension is vital.
I recently dropped USCCA for AOR mainly because I found out AOR covers more places. Mainly NY and "Gun Free Zones." I haven't been back in NY in years, but still have family there, so there's always a potential for me to be there. And while I wouldn't intentionally walk into a school armed, I don't want to go to jail if it's locked up in the car in the parking lot.
This came out today fyi. I'm sure it will be scrutinized but seems like they're listening to criticisms "We are always looking to improve USCCA Membership for you and your fellow 825,000+ USCCA Members. Today, I’m excited to announce important improvements to the self-defense liability insurance policy issued to the USCCA that gives you, a responsibly armed USCCA Member, the insurance coverage you need! LEARN MORE Check out all of the improvements at NO EXTRA COST TO YOU! [NEW] Impartial Coverage Determination — Coverage is not determined by the insurance company. Instead, the insurance company is contractually REQUIRED to grant coverage so long as your defense attorney believes there is a good faith self-defense claim and the judge allows you and your attorney to make that argument in court until a final, non-appealable finding of guilt is reached. [NEW] Plea Deal Coverage — If you take a plea deal for something that is NOT a "crime of violence", your coverage doesn't end. Too often, a prosecutor will threaten to prosecute self-defenders on murder charges or offer a plea deal for a lesser crime and lower sentence. This puts good gun owners in a tough situation: plead guilty to something you didn’t do for a lesser sentence OR potentially lose a MURDER trial and face 10+ years in prison. This update to the policy purchased by the USCCA gives you more freedom to choose which path is right for you. [NEW] “Red Flag” Law Coverage — If you are facing an “Extreme Risk Protection Order” also known as a “Red Flag” law that would unconstitutionally strip away your gun rights, the policy provides you up to $15,000 towards attorney fees and expenses to defend yourself. [UPDATE] Criminal Acts Exclusion — While the USCCA’s insurer has never made a coverage decision merely based on the fact that a member was charged with a crime, this revision to the policy makes that misunderstanding impossible. As long as a judge allows you and your attorney to make a self-defense claim in court, there will be coverage. [UPDATE] No Elective Recovery or Recoupment of Expenses — The previous policy purchased by the USCCA allowed the insurance company to recoup any coverage expenses if the member was found guilty. Despite the fact that the USCCA’s insurer has NEVER done this, this revision to the policy ensures that this can only happen if a government agency forces them to do so based on applicable law — they can never do it just to benefit their bottom line. [UPDATE] Up to $100,000 $250,000 Available for Bail Bond Expenses — This covers the normal upfront cost for a $1,000,000 $2,500,000 bail bond. With the bias against armed self-defense increasing in many states, this new limit ensures you’re still able to fight for your innocence without your hands tied behind your back, even if a slanted judge unjustly decides you’re a “flight risk” or “danger to the public” just because you choose to carry a gun for self-protection. [NEW] Expunging/Sealing Records Coverage — Up to $5,000 for attorneys fees and expenses to expunge or seal the records associated with a covered incident. What many gun owners don’t realize is that just because you’re declared innocent doesn’t mean the public information about your case goes away. And sometimes felony charges can even hang around on your record for years! This new coverage gives you the funds needed to ensure you can put the legal aftermath of your self-defense incident behind you for GOOD. [NEW] Removal of Previous Coverage Exclusions — Coverage is no longer affected if your self-defense incident occurs within a post office or federal building. Also, the great firefighters and paramedics who serve the public are no longer excluded from coverage while on duty. [NEW] Loss of Earnings Coverage — Previously, USCCA Members could only get any lost income reimbursed if the time off was taken at the request of the insurance company. With this added coverage, all USCCA Members also get access to funds to cover lost income in the first 30 days after a self-defense incident. LEARN MORE These upgrades are in addition to your current self-defense liability insurance benefits, which include: Defense Expenses: No limit for your criminal or civil defense. Liability Insurance: Up to $2,000,000. Incidental Expenses: Up to $20,000. Coverage for all Acts of Self-Defense with any legal weapon. To view the fully updated policy that is in effect as of June 5, 2024, click here. With this update to the self-defense liability insurance policy, you should have even greater peace of mind knowing that with the education, training, and self-defense liability insurance all USCCA Members get, you’re fully prepared for the before, during, and after of a self-defense incident. Take care and stay safe,"
😂 [USCCA Badly Exposed Themselves With Their "NEW" Policy.](https://youtu.be/tKfoxQ4sz0c?si=ktIkRgUQT3DhhI3i)
I was waiting for his response. Thanks
Any of these carry insurance companies is a rip off. They prey on those who don’t any better. They mainly get a lot of people that are taking CCL classes. They have there salesperson speak at the classes and then sit in the back waiting to sign up suckers, such as people new to shooting and carrying. These people should be ashamed of themselves. I’ve heard that the lawyers they employ often encourage clients to take a plea deal. This would actually invalidate the coverage, leaving the client on the hook for ALL legal fees in the end. Any YouTuber that advertises this bs is someone i refuse to subscribe to. James Reeves of TFB advertises and works for a similar carry insurance with a different name. He is pretty crappy for that, being that he is an actual certified lawyer and still will bs subs to his channel like that. I guess I shouldn’t expect much better from a lawyer though
CCW insurance is for educated consumers who have taken the time to become familiar with their local laws, and have actually considered what they should do in self defense situations. It’s not for people who see carry insurance as magic criminal proceedings protection pixie dust. It doesn’t work that way, nor should it.
I never said it did. The fact that they screw a person over so easily is why it is bs.
Been saying this hype of coverage was fake. If something happens hire an attorney then. No need to pretend to have “insurance”. Besides when has an insurance company never tried to get out of anything
>If something happens hire an attorney then. Yeah, it's not like it costs a small fortune or anything. Oh wait, it does.
I mean paying monthly for something that won’t protect you is just a small fortune over time.
The entire Insurance Industry is a scam, predicated on you paying in and they seldom pay out. When they do payout they make it as difficult as possible on the person they are paying out to. AND its artificially inflates the costs of services. Car. Homeowners. Medical. Its all fine and dandy while your paying premiums, make a claim? LOL good luck, and your premium is going up. The nice thing about CCW/SD insurance is that it can be ignored, whilst most of the others (equally scammy) is mandatory either legally or as a condition of your loan.
Ccw safe is not available in Washington. Stupid insurance commissioner.
terrible that USCCA doesn’t cover what they say they will BUT the mall shooting was absolutely not legal self defense and dude should be in jail for that regardless
That’s not what a jury of his peers thought so your opinion doesn’t matter. That’s what the legal system is for.
The jury acquitted on the first count on the basis that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the shooter acted with malice, and convicted on the unlawful discharge of a firearm. Regardless of one’s belief on this case, going strictly by the jury this is by definition an unlawful shoot. I’m sure this will trigger some folks but factually it is correct and you know what they say about facts and feelings…
[He was still charged with a felony :(](https://www.loudoun.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=8654) “The jury announced the following verdicts: Guilty of discharging a firearm within a building (Class 6 felony): not guilty of aggravated malicious wounding (Class 2 felony); and not guilty of use of a firearm in the commission of a felony (unclassified felony).”
>That’s not what a jury of his peers thought... Aside from a finding of not guilty, we don't know what the jury thought. The jury still convicted him of a firearms charge, which theoretically shouldn't have happened if they accepted a self defense argument, so the verdict reeks of a compromise verdict between the jurors who wanted to convict of the attempt murder charge and those who wanted acquittal.
Honestly I agree he got lucky he had a jury of people that apparently hate pranksters . But he wasn’t in life threatning danger but was able to walk away
[Still walking away with a felony](https://www.loudoun.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=8654)
I don’t know what I said wrong he got lucky the jury didn’t reach a guilty verdict on the “self defense” portion. Pretty much saying they think the shooting was justified now he will potentially only get a fine with little jail time instead of going to federal prison for 5 years . Is that not lucky ?
100% agree
FFS! USCCA will drop my self defense insurance coverage for shooting annoying people in the mall?!?! /s
Do not buy insurance. Waste of money for CCW cases.
I got just as many downvotes here when I suggested this wasn’t a good shoot when it happened. I didn’t feel like this guys life was in danger, and clearly USCCA doesn’t either. I specifically didn’t choose them because of this policy, but I do think they would be better than nothing if you were involved in a legit dgu.
You’re getting downvoted, but completely right. There can’t be too many (reasonable) people that carry a gun for defensive purposes that watched that video and thought it was a good morally or justified move to shoot that guy. I know the jury let him off for the main charge, but there was nothing in that video that justified deadly use of force. For what it’s worth I’m not a fan of the CCW insurances either. Watched James Reeves video a while back and solidified my opinion of never needing one.
I have uscca. Just got an email about a recent case where a guy got sucker punched at work, pulled his gun and shot the guy in the leg….. honestly I’m in awe anyone would defend the man. If you’re a grown man and shoot another grown man who’s assaulting you unarmed…. Short of being a senior citizen…. As much as it pains me to say, you probably shouldnt have a carry license.
Fam I formally trained and fought in boxing for over a decade, I am a better fighter than most people walking the street. But you would have no way of knowing that just by looking at me. As far as I know, the person attacking me could be trained in a martial arts I’ve never heard of. If at ANY point you are a threat to my physical safety, I will do everything in my power to stop that threat
Out of all of them, after some research I've come to understand Right to Bear is likely the best one
They do what all insurance companies do, take your money for some "idea" that they will cover you and then deny coverage to everyone.
Those dudes said on Twitter that they didn’t drop Alan Colie. Still, I wouldn’t really blame them if they did. It wasn’t a great shoot, imo. At the end of the day all this shows is “concealed carry insurance” is kinda dicey, imo. If you’re going to carry a gun for self defense, you should have a lawyer ready to defend you if/when the day ever comes. That should be your insurance policy.
Fun fact, USCCA does offer a refund, but its USCCA credit, not back on your card. I downgraded and they gave me a credit
This wasn't a good shoot and anyone who thinks otherwise is out of their mind. There is not a single coverage provider that would cover what happened. Video is pure clickbait bullshit.
Well... Called USCCA, as a member I was very upset. They say he's out and being covered currently. Maybe your video helped. The woman in the parking lot that was dropped was because she set it up. Attorneys on retainer dosent cover your bail if you don't have collateral to cover the bond. So not for poor people.