-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Is USCCA worthy?
- Thread starter Angryceltic
- Start date
Seems like most of the changes are covered here:
USCCA Review [for 2024] | Written by a Firearms Attorney
Is USCCA worth the money? Will it help in case of an emergency? Find out what a Firearms Attorney has to say in this USCCA review.
gununiversity.com
I’m not really sure what to think right now. I like the idea of the insurance, but don’t care to pay more for the training stuff I won’t use.
Buck F
NES Member
Great article, thanks for posting. Did not know this:Seems like most of the changes are covered here:
USCCA Review [for 2024] | Written by a Firearms Attorney
Is USCCA worth the money? Will it help in case of an emergency? Find out what a Firearms Attorney has to say in this USCCA review.
I’m not really sure what to think right now. I like the idea of the insurance, but don’t care to pay more for the training stuff I won’t use.
"No Sales in NY, NJ, WA: Just recently the local governments for these three states banned the sales of “CCW insurance” programs. This doesn’t mean that your CCW insurance won’t work if you’re visiting there, it just means you can’t buy it if you live here. However, this is a limitation for all CCW insurance services right now."
Aren't these the usual idiots who demand everyone who owns a gun carry liability insurance? Yet they ban it in their own state. Unreal...
allen-1
NES Member
They don't really want you to have liability insurance - they want to give you another barrier towards gun ownership.
Kind of like those "common sense" gun laws. They're not designed to do anything useful, they're designed to slowly disarm you and make the populace visualize you as a "gun nut".
safetyfirst2125
NES Member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2020
- Messages
- 15,577
- Likes
- 40,183
Insane.
This is the part where the carrier needs to simply keep selling the policies and dare the state to sue.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,555
- Likes
- 33,622
To buyers who know the state would step in and prevent them from getting paid?
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,555
- Likes
- 33,622
WA is shall issue and much of upstate NY once you get outside the "commutable to NYC" distance is also de-facto shall issue without restrictions.
Everybody wants a test case, but nobody wants to be the test case. These associations, from the NRA on down, claim to be on the side of gun owners, but they choose not to get into the real fray at the state and local level.
So I say again: sell the insurance. Then take the law through the federal challenge process by filing suit against the state. The purchase of an insurance product does not come with the assumption that the buyer will actively increase risk having one in hand, but with the risk of said individual already calculated to determine the premium.
You have to have standing to have a case on Constitutional grounds. If the firms aren't willing to assist their members in finding standing to file suit, then there's no point in their existing anywhere.
Buck F
NES Member
Did not know re WA although I was mainly referring to the more obvious other States. Since the majority of the population of NY is within commutable distance to NYC and you can't carry in NYC even w/ a valid NY State LTC, I stand by my comment there. I am happy for the Upstaters (my stepfather just got his LTC in Dutchess County last year and had to jump through a lot of hoops to do it, and then there's the mag/ammo purchase limits...).
ReluctantDecoy
NES Member
Not that I would anticipate having more than one claim in a year (or, hopefully ever), that first line is a huge change to the terms. The rest appears to be positive in the buyer's favor, but that is a huge minus up front.
ReluctantDecoy
NES Member
That is a big plus on the no limit on defense, and all the other hard limits were raised, but if you happen to get into an oopsie after 11/1/21 that exhausts that $2M liability, then you're out of coverage until the year rolls over.
I wonder if Florida man was buying this insurance coverage and acting a fool because they thought they were above the law at that point, getting multiple claims a year, so USCCA had to change up the terms.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,555
- Likes
- 33,622
Or multiple plaintiffs filing claims.
Remember, USCCA retains the right to change terms in any manner, and any time, without advance notice if it wishes.
Last edited:
Mesatchornug
NES Member
My first thought was that they are what's going down with Kyle and are thinking about what that means for their clients
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,555
- Likes
- 33,622
Things like "no limit" coverage sound nice, but the devil is in the detail of collecting.
Suppose you decide to hire a high profile nationally known attorney who charges north of $1K and hour, and he decides he needs a team of 6 retired FBI agents to investigate the case? Do you really think "no limit" means "no limit". It's probably more like "no limit" data plans or web hosting that come up with "...but we didn't mean that..." when you try to run something the side of NES on a $20/month "no limit" server marketing to hobbyists.
Then consider that only some components, if any, of the plan are true "insurance" - licensed as such, regulated by the state insurance commissions, have claims paying reserves analyzed and rates, etc. Just try calling asking "What is you AMBest rating? Oh, and I'd also like your AMBest number so I can look it up myself". If they say "we don't have one", and how you can get an audited report of their finances including claims paying reserve and history.
There are weasel words like "self defense case". Guess what? If it goes to court, the govt is taking the position it was not self defense. What if the carry insurance says "we don't consider that self defense, we will not pay"? Do you have enough after paying your criminal defense attorney to fund a case trying to get the carry insurance company to pay?
And, of course, ambiguous wording like "$100K available to you for a bail bond fee". What does "Available to" mean? Does it mean the org pays the fee gratis, or does it mean they extend a load for the fee? Why the difference in wording from the liability and defense limit? Does it have meaning? Will they say exactly what "available for..." means in writing?
And note that only the liability coverage uses the word "insurance".
So many questions.....
Suppose you decide to hire a high profile nationally known attorney who charges north of $1K and hour, and he decides he needs a team of 6 retired FBI agents to investigate the case? Do you really think "no limit" means "no limit". It's probably more like "no limit" data plans or web hosting that come up with "...but we didn't mean that..." when you try to run something the side of NES on a $20/month "no limit" server marketing to hobbyists.
Then consider that only some components, if any, of the plan are true "insurance" - licensed as such, regulated by the state insurance commissions, have claims paying reserves analyzed and rates, etc. Just try calling asking "What is you AMBest rating? Oh, and I'd also like your AMBest number so I can look it up myself". If they say "we don't have one", and how you can get an audited report of their finances including claims paying reserve and history.
There are weasel words like "self defense case". Guess what? If it goes to court, the govt is taking the position it was not self defense. What if the carry insurance says "we don't consider that self defense, we will not pay"? Do you have enough after paying your criminal defense attorney to fund a case trying to get the carry insurance company to pay?
And, of course, ambiguous wording like "$100K available to you for a bail bond fee". What does "Available to" mean? Does it mean the org pays the fee gratis, or does it mean they extend a load for the fee? Why the difference in wording from the liability and defense limit? Does it have meaning? Will they say exactly what "available for..." means in writing?
And note that only the liability coverage uses the word "insurance".
So many questions.....
