Personal Defense Insurance

[BigNate]

I understand that there are a variety of opinions on the relative value / importance of having something like USCCA insurance. I guess that will probably leak in here a bit - but if possible I'd like to focus on which organizations folks have used and whether there are any not on the following list that I should be looking at... or any on this list that you would tell me to stay away from...

Possible Insurers

• USCCA
• CCW Safe
• Right to Bear Insurance
• US Law Shield
• Second Call Defense

For my part - I'm looking at this primarily as "pure insurance" - essentially as a hedge against financial ruin in the event that I ever had to use a weapon defensively. My guess is that it is something that I'll pay for and never use - and if that happens I'm fine with it. I'm not really concerned about the value of training content or peripheral services (bail bonds, loss of earnings coverage, etc.). I can deal with that stuff on my own. I'm primarily concerned about coverage of the cost of a quality and expert defense attorney to represent me if something happened. The only lawyers I have worked with in the course of my life have been business lawyers and family law (trust) lawyers - and these experiences have taught me two things...
1) Good lawyers are not cheap...
2) Getting a lawyer that is specialized in your area of need is critical.

The intent of the insurance would be to ensure that I have the immediate means to cover both those concerns.

[Tenring]

I have spoken with Tim Forshey (Attorney at Law) a few times in the past, might be worth a call. 602.495.6511

[Joe_Blacke]

It’s illegal for an insurance company to insure an illegal act. If your concern is legal representation for being charged with a crime, you’d be better off with a lawyer retainer program.

Not affiliated, but Attorneys on Retainer is Marc Victor’s program.

If you would rather have insurance, an umbrella insurance policy provides greater coverage and in a lurch larger capacity of problems.

[pneuby]

There is also Firearms Legal Protection, with all of the faults that Marc Victor covers in his reviews on these plans..

https://www.youtube.com/@AttorneysForFreedom

[Bigfoot]

I've been debating on all of the above as well...and am having trouble deciding on one of the "insurances" or something like that attorney on retainer.

[BigNate]

Thanks all... I've been watching the Attorneys for Freedom videos. I appreciate the concerns that he raises about some of his competition - and it sounds like he is a true "gun guy" which is something that has real value. It feels like a lot of the issues that he's calling out are contract language associated with the legal premise that it is illegal to insure criminal activity. This does, indeed, create a problem for these "insurance" offerings - and creates an advantage for him and his model of hiring a law firm at a fixed monthly fee vs "buying insurance." I'll be adding them - and Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network - which appears to be the "personal defense insurance" industry equivalent to Medi-Share's offering in the health insurance industry - they are not "insurance" - they are a group of people who mutually agree to share each other's expenses associated with costs in that area.

I'm updating the list in the initial post based on what I'm finding as I research.

[Joe_Blacke]

There is always the option to self insure. That’s what I’m doing.

If you do the math, it’s the only cost effective option. Not to mention there are additional financial benefits in the long term.

[Tenring]

Considered these guys a while back but never spoke to them:

https://azgunlaw.com/

[thom]

PM sent

[Dauph]

I don’t typically watch this guy but found this one interesting. Looks like everyone’s favorite local attorney.

https://attorneysonretainer.us/

[trailboss60]

One that I would not sign up for is Firearms Legal Protection.
Firearmslegal.com

Recently, I was looking for the cheapest way to get my CCW re-instated, my old one had lapsed. Found a class nearby, and the class served its purpose for me, but it was a hard sell on their policy from beginning to end.

A lot of really bad responses were made by members of the class, and the teacher did not correct them, it was all more about selling a policy than educating people in responsibility and the law.It looked like everyone in the class signed up for the policy, so their sales methodology must be successful.

[SupportTheSecond]

I always forward this link:

https://www.concealedcarry.com/self-def ... -compared/

[aroyobob]

There is always the option to self insure. That’s what I’m doing.

If you do the math, it’s the only cost effective option. Not to mention there are additional financial benefits in the long term.

sorry that this is a month later but I'm curious what you think the cost would be in a self-defense shooting situation? If you search on "cost of self-defense shooting" you find numbers from $10,000 to $150,000 and a few higher. Maybe all those posts are selling self-defense shooting insurance but, after a brush with a minor offense that required a lawyer and cost in the high four figures, I can believe that defending against manslaughter or murder 2 could easily blow past the $150,000 number. Assuming you don't plan on taking a plea?

A person could do it if they have that much saved up or could take out a HELOC.

[Joe_Blacke]

There is always the option to self insure. That’s what I’m doing.

If you do the math, it’s the only cost effective option. Not to mention there are additional financial benefits in the long term.

sorry that this is a month later but I'm curious what you think the cost would be in a self-defense shooting situation? If you search on "cost of self-defense shooting" you find numbers from $10,000 to $150,000 and a few higher. Maybe all those posts are selling self-defense shooting insurance but, after a brush with a minor offense that required a lawyer and cost in the high four figures, I can believe that defending against manslaughter or murder 2 could easily blow past the $150,000 number. Assuming you don't plan on taking a plea?

A person could do it if they have that much saved up or could take out a HELOC.

If you really understand title 13 chapter 4 and know and apply reasonableness and necessary (rather than can), your chances of needing a lawyer at all are so small that I doubt it could be calculated.

That being said, you are correct that self insurance means having a sufficient emergency funds, or other means to raise funds.

As I said elsewhere. These insurance companies recognize this as the cash cow it is. For every tens of thousands of policies they write, there may only be 1 or two claims filed. Gun owners/carriers are pre-disposed to believing that a shooting is more likely than not. The actuary tables show the opposite.

I’m more than comfortable not using this kind of insurance. I say that as someone who is probably way more likely than many on here if actually being in a shooting based on the number of armed interactions I have on a monthly basis. Nearly weekly I interact with armed mentally ill homeless people who are trespassing or committing some other criminal offense, or others who make direct physical threats at one of the properties I protect. I have no fear of being charged with a crime if I get into a shooting with some of these folks. It all comes down to reasonableness and necessary. Meaning if I’m shooting, it’s because I must, not “can”.

Granted I’m also friends with many prosecutors and lawyers in AZ. Some of my friends are in charge of determining charges for these types of cases. From all the anecdotal stories I hear from them on declining to prosecute on legitimate criminal shootings, and the fact in AZ you really don’t hear about “good guys” getting charged much. There is only one case people can try and point to (Harold Fish), but in that case had he acted reasonably and necessary, not changed his story which conflicted with each one, he wouldn’t have been charged. Plus AZ law has since changed since this case where the prosecutor now has to prove it wasn’t self defense to convict someone. That raises the bar significantly

[aroyobob]

There is always the option to self insure. That’s what I’m doing.

If you do the math, it’s the only cost effective option. Not to mention there are additional financial benefits in the long term.

sorry that this is a month later but I'm curious what you think the cost would be in a self-defense shooting situation? If you search on "cost of self-defense shooting" you find numbers from $10,000 to $150,000 and a few higher. Maybe all those posts are selling self-defense shooting insurance but, after a brush with a minor offense that required a lawyer and cost in the high four figures, I can believe that defending against manslaughter or murder 2 could easily blow past the $150,000 number. Assuming you don't plan on taking a plea?

A person could do it if they have that much saved up or could take out a HELOC.

If you really understand title 13 chapter 4 and know and apply reasonableness and necessary (rather than can), your chances of needing a lawyer at all are so small that I doubt it could be calculated.

That being said, you are correct that self insurance means having a sufficient emergency funds, or other means to raise funds.

As I said elsewhere. These insurance companies recognize this as the cash cow it is. For every tens of thousands of policies they write, there may only be 1 or two claims filed. Gun owners/carriers are pre-disposed to believing that a shooting is more likely than not. The actuary tables show the opposite.

I’m more than comfortable not using this kind of insurance. I say that as someone who is probably way more likely than many on here if actually being in a shooting based on the number of armed interactions I have on a monthly basis. Nearly weekly I interact with armed mentally ill homeless people who are trespassing or committing some other criminal offense, or others who make direct physical threats at one of the properties I protect. I have no fear of being charged with a crime if I get into a shooting with some of these folks. It all comes down to reasonableness and necessary. Meaning if I’m shooting, it’s because I must, not “can”.

Granted I’m also friends with many prosecutors and lawyers in AZ. Some of my friends are in charge of determining charges for these types of cases. From all the anecdotal stories I hear from them on declining to prosecute on legitimate criminal shootings, and the fact in AZ you really don’t hear about “good guys” getting charged much. There is only one case people can try and point to (Harold Fish), but in that case had he acted reasonably and necessary, not changed his story which conflicted with each one, he wouldn’t have been charged. Plus AZ law has since changed since this case where the prosecutor now has to prove it wasn’t self defense to convict someone. That raises the bar significantly

Thanks. Hadn't heard about the change to what the prosecutor has to prove.