Concealed Carry Insurance? USCCA?

[ZigZagZeke]

I've been considering changing my legal insurance from Legal Shield to something a little more specific to concealed carry. What are the viable options out there? What's everybody else using? What about USCCA? Pros? Cons? What do I look for? What experiences have people had with this type of coverage?

Read More

 

[L84Cabo]

Virgina Citizens Defense League has a very helpful comparison of defensive insurance programs that you may find helpful. It's a few years old but I think it's still accurate.

Virginia Citizens Defense League - Legal Plan Comparison

vcdl.org

 

[CHLChris]

I'm a proud member of Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network. First year about 130, then 90 every year after.

 

[aljames]

And here I thought concealed carry IS my insurance program.....

 

[kbf64]

CCWsafe has a great podcat....

 

[Defense Minister]

I've been researching this pretty heavily and it has come down to either USCCA or CCW Safe as my primary criteria is good coverage. I have read through the Terms and Conditions word-for-word on both sites, and there is one thing I found in the Terms for CCW Safe which may be a deal-breaker for me. I have inquired of them in order to gather more details and will post their reply once received, but as you will see in the language quoted below it is VERY subjective in regards to the consumption of alcohol in "any public place or private property that is not of your own".

Without stating how "altered judgement" or "impaired" are defined, it could be determined that having one beer while dining out, and then being forced to defend yourself outside the restaurant, could subject a member to a non-coverage situation. I'm not a heavy drinker, but I don't want to put myself in a position where having a beer or glass of wine with dinner makes my legal defense plan null and void!

From the CCW Safe Terms:

SUBSTANCES THAT ALTER JUDGMENT: CCW Safe will not provide the services if, at the time of a use of force incident, you are impaired in public or private property not of your own, by the use of alcohol, or controlled substances, or prescribed medication that alters judgment, or in any location you are in violation of state law or regulation concerning alcohol and drug use while in the possession of a firearm. This restriction is specific to any public place or private property not of your own.

 

[Dinglenutz]

I read and wondered precisely this as well.

I'm currently with USCCA but I'm considering a change.

 

[E4mafia]

I went with USCCA $33 a month plan. If you read its plan then compare to CCWsafe the catch with CCWsafe is that to get the better portion of protection you have to agree to pay their yearly membership up front and its ONLY valid if you go that route. Otherwise its vanilla plan is $16 a month iirc but only covers certain fields. CCWsafe also stacks on other benefits should you choose to add those.

Looking at meta between the two seems like USCCA makes more sense for what you buy into and the fact its not behind a criteria up front either like CCWsafe. With CCWsafe is close to about $500 a year if you go full swing. USCCA is 396 unless you pay for the year membership up front in which I think you save $30 or so up front but you aren't required to do the yearly for ALL of its benefits. They just go by 3 tiers instead.

Since I have only been a member for about a month I do have access to good training materials, reciprocity maps, information etc. I also get to view a list of lawyers in the area who are relevant to defending and their experiences. You also get a calling card that has a 24/7 monitored line for if you do decide to self defend yourself in home or elsewhere on what to do/say and post instructions.

Is it for everyone? not likely, should you have it? probably if you are mostly active in carrying/training and living in not so friendly neighborhoods. Peace of mind but you are far more likely to use your health care insurance than this is how i see it.

 

[BAJ475]

I've been researching this pretty heavily and it has come down to either USCCA or CCW Safe as my primary criteria is good coverage. I have read through the Terms and Conditions word-for-word on both sites, and there is one thing I found in the Terms for CCW Safe which may be a deal-breaker for me. I have inquired of them in order to gather more details and will post their reply once received, but as you will see in the language quoted below it is VERY subjective in regards to the consumption of alcohol in "any public place or private property that is not of your own".

Without stating how "altered judgement" or "impaired" are defined, it could be determined that having one beer while dining out, and then being forced to defend yourself outside the restaurant, could subject a member to a non-coverage situation. I'm not a heavy drinker, but I don't want to put myself in a position where having a beer or glass of wine with dinner makes my legal defense plan null and void!

From the CCW Safe Terms:

SUBSTANCES THAT ALTER JUDGMENT: CCW Safe will not provide the services if, at the time of a use of force incident, you are impaired in public or private property not of your own, by the use of alcohol, or controlled substances, or prescribed medication that alters judgment, or in any location you are in violation of state law or regulation concerning alcohol and drug use while in the possession of a firearm. This restriction is specific to any public place or private property not of your own.

Let me suggest that if you are in a place, not your own, and are impaired by alcohol or a controlled substance or a prescribed medication that alters judgment you should not be carrying. When ever my wife and I go out for dinner I do not carry, if I am planning on having a beer. If I am carrying, no alcohol. If you want to carry and consume alcohol at the same time, that is a potentially bigger problem than not having a legal defense plan. The prosecutor or plaintiff's attorney will use your alcohol consumption against you. You should also check with the agencies that issued your carry permits to see if they are valid if you are consuming alcohol or are under the influence of a controlled substance or a prescribed medication that alters judgment.

 

[Defense Minister]

Let me suggest that if you are in a place, not your own, and are impaired by alcohol or a controlled substance or a prescribed medication that alters judgment you should not be carrying. When ever my wife and I go out for dinner I do not carry, if I am planning on having a beer. If I am carrying, no alcohol. If you want to carry and consume alcohol at the same time, that is a potentially bigger problem than not having a legal defense plan. The prosecutor or plaintiff's attorney will use your alcohol consumption against you. You should also check with the agencies that issued your carry permits to see if they are valid if you are consuming alcohol or are under the influence of a controlled substance or a prescribed medication that alters judgment.

Let me suggest that if a person is under the well-established blood alcohol level to safely and legally operate a motor vehicle in most states (.08%), that he/she Is also under the level to safely and legally (depending on the specific state, as you mentioned) operate a firearm. A lot of research went into studying impairment at various blood alcohol levels in order to determine that threshold, and it's not as if I haven't thought this through before...

The point is that if CCW Safe isn't going to define what "impairment" means in their Terms regarding alcohol, then members are potentially putting themselves at risk of a non-coverage scenario if they haven't read those Terms, and in the context of this thread that is an important consideration. Based on the focus of your reply, I feel you may have missed that point entirely.

 

[HeavyfootHick]

Are we arguing now?
Good Lord.
Albeit, good points.

 

[BAJ475]

Are we arguing now?
Good Lord.
Albeit, good points.

I would not call it an argument but a discussion. Defense Minister had a good point that I agree with. CCW Safe should define and/or specify the degree of impairment that would negate their coverage, so that their customers are not taken by surprise. To me this is not an important consideration because I do not drink when carrying and do not carry when drinking. I do not agree that a blood alcohol level of 0.08% would be an appropriate criteria. The issue is not one's ability to drive but the exercise of judgment. It should also be noted that for commercial truck drivers the allowable level is generally half of that amount.

 

[DLS]

Regardless of what the legal limit may be, if there is ANY detectible alcohol in your system after a shooting, you will be fried in the civil action that follows. You will have a very hard uphill road in criminal court as well.

While 0.08% may be the max for driving, driving is a very routine, mundane, oft practiced skill. It is nowhere close to the cognitive, emotional and physical skills called upon during a dynamic shooting event. Using that as a measure for carry purposes is pretty risky if you ask me!

In aviation it's "24 hours from bottle to throttle". In other words no flying until a full 24 hours pass from your last drink. Even if your BA level is zero prior ... you still wait the 24 hours. Not a bad measure for carry purposed in my mind.

Cheers.

 

[BAJ475]

Regardless of what the legal limit may be, if there is ANY detectible alcohol in your system after a shooting, you will be fried in the civil action that follows. You will have a very hard uphill road in criminal court as well.

While 0.08% may be the max for driving, driving is a very routine, mundane, oft practiced skill. It is nowhere close to the cognitive, emotional and physical skills called upon during a dynamic shooting event. Using that as a measure for carry purposes is pretty risky if you ask me!

In aviation it's "24 hours from bottle to throttle". In other words no flying until a full 24 hours pass from your last drink. Even if your BA level is zero prior ... you still wait the 24 hours. Not a bad measure for carry purposed in my mind.

Cheers.

First let me say that I fully agree with you. But I am responding for a different reason. You bring back memories from long ago. I remember an ex neighbor, who was an AA flight engineer, saying that when I was in high school, over 6 decades ago..

 

[Bushman]

I've been researching this pretty heavily and it has come down to either USCCA or CCW Safe as my primary criteria is good coverage. I have read through the Terms and Conditions word-for-word on both sites, and there is one thing I found in the Terms for CCW Safe which may be a deal-breaker for me. I have inquired of them in order to gather more details and will post their reply once received, but as you will see in the language quoted below it is VERY subjective in regards to the consumption of alcohol in "any public place or private property that is not of your own".

Without stating how "altered judgement" or "impaired" are defined, it could be determined that having one beer while dining out, and then being forced to defend yourself outside the restaurant, could subject a member to a non-coverage situation. I'm not a heavy drinker, but I don't want to put myself in a position where having a beer or glass of wine with dinner makes my legal defense plan null and void!

From the CCW Safe Terms:

SUBSTANCES THAT ALTER JUDGMENT: CCW Safe will not provide the services if, at the time of a use of force incident, you are impaired in public or private property not of your own, by the use of alcohol, or controlled substances, or prescribed medication that alters judgment, or in any location you are in violation of state law or regulation concerning alcohol and drug use while in the possession of a firearm. This restriction is specific to any public place or private property not of your own.

Ccwsafe as well as the other companies don't cover WA. Says so right on their website...

 

[Bushman]

Regardless of what the legal limit may be, if there is ANY detectible alcohol in your system after a shooting, you will be fried in the civil action that follows. You will have a very hard uphill road in criminal court as well.

While 0.08% may be the max for driving, driving is a very routine, mundane, oft practiced skill. It is nowhere close to the cognitive, emotional and physical skills called upon during a dynamic shooting event. Using that as a measure for carry purposes is pretty risky if you ask me!

In aviation it's "24 hours from bottle to throttle". In other words no flying until a full 24 hours pass from your last drink. Even if your BA level is zero prior ... you still wait the 24 hours. Not a bad measure for carry purposed in my mind.

Cheers.

Are you an attorney? Can you cite case law on your bold claims or are those just your feelings....


.

 

[Bushman]

Let me suggest that if a person is under the well-established blood alcohol level to safely and legally operate a motor vehicle in most states (.08%), that he/she Is also under the level to safely and legally (depending on the specific state, as you mentioned) operate a firearm. A lot of research went into studying impairment at various blood alcohol levels in order to determine that threshold, and it's not as if I haven't thought this through before...

The point is that if CCW Safe isn't going to define what "impairment" means in their Terms regarding alcohol, then members are potentially putting themselves at risk of a non-coverage scenario if they haven't read those Terms, and in the context of this thread that is an important consideration. Based on the focus of your reply, I feel you may have missed that point entirely.

Again, ccwsafe does not cover WA. It says so on their website. The others I've looked into also don't cover WA.

 

[BAJ475]

Again, ccwsafe does not cover WA. It says so on their website. The others I've looked into also don't cover WA.

Defense Minister does not appear to be in WA so what is your point in repeating this statement? I have my doubts that anyone will offer a plan in WA.

 

[Defense Minister]

Defense Minister does not appear to be in WA so what is your point in repeating this statement? I have my doubts that anyone will offer a plan in WA.

I wondered the same thing myself...

And, you are correct regarding WA. None of them offer a plan there any longer unless the plan existed and a person was a member prior to the change in state law barring the offering of this type of plan to WA state members.

 

[BAJ475]

I wondered the same thing myself...

And, you are correct regarding WA. None of them offer a plan there any longer unless the plan existed and a person was a member prior to the change in state law barring the offering of this type of plan to WA state members.

It just goes to show that WA is more interested in protecting, looters, rioters, criminals and Marxist terrorist than its hard working law abiding residents.