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/

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kzFOW4qjSYw

 

[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-defense-gun-owner-insurance-programs-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.

 

[trailboss60]

Thanks for your perspective, Joe.
It makes a lot of sense.

New Jersey, California might be a different matter.

Location, location, location.

 

[BigNate]

Thanks [mention]Joe_Blacke[/mention] I appreciate the insights... A couple of questions...

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.

I'm pretty confidant that my framework for representing or using deadly force is more conservative than the law requires (I think I have a pretty good understanding of the threshold for legal threat or use of deadly force - but despite the lack of requirement to do so - I'm happy to retreat if that is an option)... That said - I guess my concern is the cost associated with legal representation immediately after an event should one happen. I understand that I'm probably looking at a minimum of a $10K retainer to have a competent criminal defense attorney in place before being interviewed. I guess I don't have a clear picture of what the actual costs would be of such an interaction -but I understand that higher end criminal defense attorneys START at about $500/hr. so getting one engaged is going to cost thousands of dollars even if it is just an initial consult and representation for an interview with the police I'm guessing that I've sunk $5,000 into it even if it is one interview resulting in a recommendation that no prosecution is warranted. I'm in a weird place in that I generally have a huge respect for law enforcement and have no sense that rank and file police officers / deputies are "out to get me" (or anyone - other than active criminals) - but I have very little trust in the system behind them. I see the prosecutors offices as highly politicized - and increasingly dominated by people who see the world through a lens of social justice and "equity" - and I worry about the cost of fighting a political prosecution (old conservative white guy shoots <insert non-white skin tone here> guy - therefore he must be a racist and deserving of prosecution). Maybe those fears are unfounded - but I can tell you that I have them - and if I were ever involved in any defensive use of a firearm I'd want to have a competent attorney present before making a statement - primarily because I think that that approach would reduce the likelihood of a political prosecution happening. Is your view that this fear is unfounded?

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

I have pointed to the Harold Fish case in just this way. I had never heard that he changed his story. I'm interested in what I've missed? When I looked for info on the case what I found were generally descriptions of the initial story (rushed by dogs... shots into the ground to deter the dogs... then rushed by crazed younger / fit man while miles from any assistance... shot the crazed guy in self defense). I understood that the Coconino County Sheriff represented this to the county attorney as appearing to be a legitimate self defense shoot - and the anti-gun political minded county attorney overrode this recommendation and prosecuted him - successfully suppressing evidence of the attacker's previous violent and unhinged behavior and portraying Fish as some sort of gun-nut because he carried an extra deadly 10mm handgun. I'm curious to what happened with him changing his story and whether the portrayal of the prosecutor that I have seen in other places (e.g. https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=4266 ) are inaccurate?

 

[Joe_Blacke]

If your concern is retaining an attorney prior to a police interview, it’s not an issue.

Good defense attorneys do the initial interview sit in pro bono. It’s only after you have been charged so they look at retainers, or if you simply want them to babysit you through the process.

It may be different if you decided to answer any questions prior to asking for a lawyer and now there are follow up interviews and interrogations

 

[Dauph]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9sKtAVOfSG8

 

[pneuby]

If the above video didn't convince me, I am convinced now. I will not be renewing my plan next year.
It's not USCCA, but certainly rife with the 'outs' they can take at any time.