• 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.

So.... USCCA is pretty crap.

Ron Jablonski said:
I've been seeing a few videos on YouTube lately about uscca. An insurance company that finds ways not to pay up when the time comes does not surprise me.
Click to expand...

Yeah, a ton of guntubers I enjoy watching are happily taking their ad dollars. Most of the 2A community I would assume would not take a hit to their wallets just to call out or even quietly decline future work with them, as apparently this is a relatively old story but a few are still partnered with USCCA. Brandon Herrera hasn't done anything with them in a while though.
 
I got sick of there over the top advertising and marketing tactics. Blocked, unsubscribed. Wife thought she was doing me a favor.
 
Can you guys post the original videos rather than an answer referencing a bunch of videos?
 
Broc said:
Can you guys post the original videos rather than an answer referencing a bunch of videos?
Click to expand...
Sounds like you would love "unboxing" videos as much as I do. Videos referencing other discussion videos test my humanity, but when I'm searching for a review of some item and unboxing videos get the top hits? LOL I practically lose my sh+t!
[rofl]

I can't believe anyone was ever dumb enough to make such a video let alone copy the concept. Videos about discussion videos are a close second. Real life Idiocracy...
 
You may wish to get this...

They have a board of leading experts that decide if you case is viable...

ACLDN

armedcitizensnetwork.org armedcitizensnetwork.org
 
Most shocking thing I just heard about USCCA:
If you lose your criminal case, you have to REIMBURSE them for legal fees!!! After they are the ones who defended you
Talk about adding insult to injury
 
Mountain said:
Sounds like you would love "unboxing" videos as much as I do. Videos referencing other discussion videos test my humanity, but when I'm searching for a review of some item and unboxing videos get the top hits? LOL I practically lose my sh+t!
[rofl]

I can't believe anyone was ever dumb enough to make such a video let alone copy the concept. Videos about discussion videos are a close second. Real life Idiocracy...
Click to expand...
There's a youtuber who live streams playing slot machines.

Seriously.
 
67ray said:
Most shocking thing I just heard about USCCA:
If you lose your criminal case, you have to REIMBURSE them for legal fees!!! After they are the ones who defended you
Talk about adding insult to injury
Click to expand...
If you are charged with murder and a misdemeanor.
You beat the murder charge but are found guilty on the misdemeanor.
Then yeah, you have to reimburse them 100%.
That is what kept me from signing up.
 
67ray said:
Most shocking thing I just heard about USCCA:
If you lose your criminal case, you have to REIMBURSE them for legal fees!!! After they are the ones who defended you
Talk about adding insult to injury
Click to expand...
Meh, not shocked. I've had to consider whether to drop them and may at my next renewal. I was annoyed by the CEOs response to the situation, and I don't like the company if he's any indication of their character. But business is business, and I have to figure out whether I think what happened in either of the two cases I know about might happen to me. I'm not convinced that it would.

Anyway, there's a clause that says they have the right to seek reimbursement, but they claim never to have done so. It's not hard to believe them. Lawyers draw up these things to protect the company. It is apparently not something that definitely will happen, rather something that could happen. I don't think they even did that with the woman convicted of killing her husband who received $50K from them before they cut her off. The Colie case seems so far to have been a "ignore it and it might go away" strategy rather than a denial, or they might have just dropped the ball. Not that these cases aren't troubling enough, but are these exceptions or the rule? Surely if it's the rule, there are dozens of other examples where coverage was denied when it was needed.
 
meh said:
Not that these cases aren't troubling enough, but are these exceptions or the rule? Surely if it's the rule, there are dozens of other examples where coverage was denied when it was needed.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure there's a big enough pool of cases to prove either side. If you look at how many people carry these types of coverage (I'm guessing it's not a large pool) multiplied by a low probability of needing to use the service, there may not be enough data to call it one way or the other. Even then, that data's likely to be held pretty close by the company.

It's non-trivial. A serious "USCCA vs AOR vs ACLDN" thread would be useful, but the odds of rapid thread drift into "How much insurance companies suck" strikes me as pretty high.
 
Could you imagine this in Massachusetts.

I had CCW Safe I dropped my coverage.

At the gun shows they have perfectly voluptuous thick women with ample bosom and rear. Usually in leggings and open carrying.. they sell the “gun self defense insurance”. Sometimes open carrying some “exotic competition gun”.

Now gun theft insurance would be more reasonable… many people in NC make their cars a place to store their truck gun. And sometimes they get broken into.

My homeowners insurance covers my guns in the house.
 
Bonesinium said:
I still don’t understand how the shooting can be both justified and unlawful at the same time.
Click to expand...
Time for NES favorite sport, mental gymnastics ...

Maybe if you are a CT resident standing on the border with NY Statate, someone on the NY side tries to attack you so you shoot him across State lines and in NY from CT.

LOL ... don't even know if that would be a thing. Might be like dividing by zero.
 
meh said:
Anyway, there's a clause that says they have the right to seek reimbursement, but they claim never to have done so
Click to expand...
Borders on the old "We won't take that clause out but don't worry, we will never enforce it" line.

ANY self defense claim that covers "self defense" cases, but does not specify "any case in which the defendant or potential defendant raises a claim of self defense will be covered" is leaving themselves a loophole big enough to drive a truck through. Ask "who makes the a-priori self defense determination" and you will get verbal assurances but nobody will put it in writing.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

F*ck the USCCA with a rusty stick
2 3 4
Replies
114
Views
3K
PappyM3
PappyM3
Is there a reason.......
2 3
Replies
66
Views
2K
CMEBoston
CMEBoston
Groton is next in line
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
Asaltweapon
Asaltweapon
Facebook is insane.
2
Replies
43
Views
954
HARRYM
H
Nevada Supreme Court Upholds Ban on So-Called ‘Ghost Guns’
Replies
4
Views
192
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
Back
Top Bottom