- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,558
- Likes
- 33,625
USCCA is not disclosing the number of claims filed for defense, the number actually funded, and the number denied.
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***
$3,000 minimum, $10,000 maximumDoes your policy have a limit on coverage for guns?
I think discharging the firearm was the violation.3) Was it a violation of law for the guy in the mall to have a gun, or a violation of mall policy? According to handgunlaw.us, Virginia does not have a binding signage law so, if true, the person was not in violation of a law by carrying.
Yes, you need a lawyer from the get go.You need USCCA from the second the cops show up. At least that is what they say, call the USCCA number and do whatever the cops ask.
I've gotten calls from uscca as a referral lawyer. In one instance the guy was refused coverage for a alleged road rage incident. On its face it did seem the guy's conduct was pretty wrongful and uscca denied coverage. But it did occur to me that in any instance of criminal charges the police report is going to read pretty poorly for the defendant.
You are my contact for USCCA. So, if they call for me, please answer.
Exactly.They will not disclose. And many think they are covering the appeal due to pressure from bad publicity.
C. The granting of a concealed handgun permit pursuant to this article shall not thereby authorize the possession of any handgun or other weapon on property or in places where such possession is otherwise prohibited by law or is prohibited by the owner of private property.
Yes, you need a lawyer from the get go.
But that’s not the issue here. The issue is “when do you need CCW insurance”?
If it is a clear cut case of self defense, then you will likely not get charged, so your legal bills will be limited. Maybe you are out $10k for your lawyer. Many people can afford to pay $10k, even though it may be difficult for them.
But if it isn’t a clear cut case of self defense and you are charged with murder, now you are facing legal bills of $100k to $1M. Most people can’t afford $100k to $1M soTHIS IS WHEN YOU NEED CCW INSURANCE. And yet this is when USCCA is more likely to deny coverage.
Now do you see the issue?
And in MA you will mostly likely be charged, regardless of circumstances.Yes, you need a lawyer from the get go.
But that’s not the issue here. The issue is “when do you need CCW insurance”?
If it is a clear cut case of self defense, then you will likely not get charged, so your legal bills will be limited. Maybe you are out $10k for your lawyer. Many people can afford to pay $10k, even though it may be difficult for them.
But if it isn’t a clear cut case of self defense and you are charged with murder, now you are facing legal bills of $100k to $1M. Most people can’t afford $100k to $1M so THIS IS WHEN YOU NEED CCW INSURANCE, when it isn’t clear cut. And yet this is precisely when USCCA is more likely to deny coverage.
Now do you see the issue?
There have been a number situations in MA where people have not been charged. The assertion that some make that you will always be charged is incorrect.And in MA you will mostly likely be charged, regardless of circumstances.
There have been a number situations in MA where people have not been charged. The assertion that some make that you will always be charged is incorrect.
Is it possible in MA (or anywhere else, for that matter) that you will be charged after a clear cut case of self defense? Sure. But it is more likely that you will be charged if the case isn’t clear cut than if it is, and it is in those not clear cut cases where USCCA appears to be more like to not cover you.
I can’t find one right now, but lawyers on NES have indicated that this has happened on a number of occasions.Can you point to any such cases? In MA, you're better off operating under the assumption you will be charged, whether or not you are actually charged. Short of someone w/ a machete in your hallway or on video outside the home clearly trying to kill you, you should expect to be charged in MA.
What matters would be a %, which I don't think anyone has.I can’t find one right now, but lawyers on NES have indicated that this has happened on a number of occasions.
Yes, I understand the “plan for the worst, hope for the best” view and I operate under that viewpoint. That doesn’t change the fact, however, that USCCA appears likely to deny coverage when you really, really need it.
I can’t find one right now, but lawyers on NES have indicated that this has happened on a number of occasions.
Yes, I understand the “plan for the worst, hope for the best” view and I operate under that viewpoint. That doesn’t change the fact, however, that USCCA appears likely to deny coverage when you really, really need it.
Not necessarily.Interesting. If the lawyers were involved you'd think perhaps the person was charged and then perhaps the charges dropped later?
It also appears that if during the course of the trial, evidence is introduced that they were not aware of, they may deny coverage and ask for what they spent up until that point, to be returned to them.That doesn’t change the fact, however, that USCCA appears likely to deny coverage when you really, really need it.
Yes, they have a clause that they can recoup legal fees. The CEO claims in his video that they have never done so. OK, if they have never tried to recoup legal fees then why do you have that clause in the contract?It also appears that if during the course of the trial, evidence is introduced that they were not aware of, they may deny coverage and ask for what they spent up until that point, to be returned to them.
Outside the home would most likely be a murder charge in MA.Can you point to any such cases? In MA, you're better off operating under the assumption you will be charged, whether or not you are actually charged. Short of someone w/ a machete in your hallway or on video outside the home clearly trying to kill you, you should expect to be charged in MA.
The shooter was a Rule 400 Boston housing cop. No police power off duty our outside of his patrol area, but this did allow the system and media to spin it as "off duty officer" rather than "vigilante who chose to ignore the MGL no guns policy".Remember this case in 2009? A psych patient stabbed his doctor and another patient who was legally carrying shot and killed the stabber. The shooter was never charged, but the investigation took six months and he did have legal representation.
Boston Police: Psych Patient Stabs Doctor And Is Shot Dead
Police say one person was shot and another stabbed outside a psychiatric office at a Boston medical building.www.wbur.org
Of the two cases posted above, one was in the home and the other was not.Outside the home would most likely be a murder charge in MA.
Would they have charged him if he hadn’t been a security guard? That is the assertion of many on NES, but without any evidence to support it.The shooter was a Rule 400 Boston housing cop. No police power off duty our outside of his patrol area, but this did allow the system and medial to spin it as "off duty officer" rather than "vigilante who chose to ignore the MGL no guns policy".
I know of one case where a person was charged and taken to trial for holding a gun at his side when verbally threatened with violence. The case was dropped since the complaintant took the 5th due to his own pending assault charge. The district court upheld the LTC revocation.Of the two cases posted above, one was in the home and the other was not.
Again, people keep making this assertion that you would most likely get charged. I’ve seen no evidence to support this claim. Is it possible that you would be charged with various charges, up to and including murder? Yes. Is that likely? I don’t think any of have the statistics to back that up.
You are absolutely correct. My point was that his "police status" (even though limited) renders this case useless as evidence as to how a commoner would be treated.Would they have charged him if he hadn’t been a security guard? That is the assertion of many on NES, but without any evidence to support it.
I completely agree with this, BTW. If we assume on the one hand that she was guilty, then there was still no way for USCCA to justify not covering her given that the court allowed a SD defense. They become judge and jury with respect to coverage, and it's a "court" with no representation nor rights to due process. If, on the other hand, we assume that she was not guilty, then USCCA adds insult to injury and compounds, potentially even enables, the injustice of it. So, yeah, I'm probably not going to renew unless they change their policies. But one thing I liked about it was that I could choose @nstassel if the need arose. Some of the others you don't get to choose.The CEO of USCCA could have resolved this with "We are modifying out contract to define "self defense case" as any case in which the defense has indicated it will use "self defense" as a defense to criminal charges. Instead, he offers words that change nothing.
Just thinking about it, one factor could be laws in some states that impinge on insuring a criminal act. IMHO, it should not be legal to regard the defendant as having committed criminal acts they have not yet been convicted of, but in the event that a defendant is ultimately convicted, then that fact could be used against the company to argue that it had, in fact, insured criminal acts and that they might then have their ability to do business in that state revoked. The clause might be there to meet this hypothetical objection, and possibly the clause would be exercised if it became the price of continuing to do business in the state. That's all just speculation on my part, so take it FWIW.Yes, they have a clause that they can recoup legal fees. The CEO claims in his video that they have never done so. OK, if they have never tried to recoup legal fees then why do you have that clause in the contract?
But... the kid that shot the douchebag prankster at the mall.... well, it was illegal for him to have that gun in a mall. It doesn't matter if the shooting was self defense. He was a criminal before he drew his gun.