JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
They are saying, you can't use it because of the criminal act you have been " accused " of? Are you fruckin kidding me.
How can they say you committed a crime when you have not been convicted of such? So the alledged crime?

How about car insurance, they gonna say we think you may have been speeding so, you can't have insurance coverage just in case you might do something wrong, or may have.

Guess its true you are guilty of a crime even before you commit one.
 
Well all I can say is WASHINGTON STATE HAS PUT A TARGET ON THE BACK OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.
NOW THEY ARE AFTER US.
the law abiding people .
The ones that can DEFEND ourselves .
And back up a OFFICER.IN NEED OF HELP.


THIS IS WHERE WE NEED HEAD LAW ENFORCEMENT TO STEP UP.
AND SAY SOMETHING.
BUT THAT WON'T HAPPEN.
.

WITCH MAKES IT EASY FOR ME TO SAY .
YOU COME TO MY HOUSE TO TAKE MY GUNS!


PACK A LUNCH
 
Well all I can say is WASHINGTON STATE HAS PUT A TARGET ON THE BACK OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.
NOW THEY ARE AFTER US.
the law abiding people .
The ones that can DEFEND ourselves .
And back up a OFFICER.IN NEED OF HELP.


THIS IS WHERE WE NEED HEAD LAW ENFORCEMENT TO STEP UP.
AND SAY SOMETHING.
BUT THAT WON'T HAPPEN.
.

WITCH MAKES IT EASY FOR ME TO SAY .
YOU COME TO MY HOUSE TO TAKE MY GUNS!


PACK A LUNCH

And get in line.:rolleyes:
 
Typically insurance NEVER pays in advance of a determination of fault / guilt / liability / etc. It seems these policies pay a fee up front to allow the insured to cover defense costs. This is not a problem if the insured eventually is found innocent. It is illegal in every state for to indemnify illegal acts, so (hate to say) the state was correct in this. So if in the end the insured is found guilty, the policy now covered an illegal act. That's the problem with these policies.

Of course, since it's related to firearms the issue becomes a punching bag in the press, with you and me (gun owners) being the bag.
 
Typically insurance NEVER pays in advance of a determination of fault / guilt / liability / etc. It seems these policies pay a fee up front to allow the insured to cover defense costs. This is not a problem if the insured eventually is found innocent. It is illegal in every state for to indemnify illegal acts, so (hate to say) the state was correct in this. So if in the end the insured is found guilty, the policy now covered an illegal act. That's the problem with these policies.

Of course, since it's related to firearms the issue becomes a punching bag in the press, with you and me (gun owners) being the bag.
But i wonder does USCCA and others like them suddenly become illegal? Or will time tell if their policies differ enough to remain legal?
 
Just got off the phone with USCCA. Their rep explained they are monitoring the situation closely and that my membership is still valid. Basically they said that since USCCA is a membership in a club that does many ither things than legal aid we should be good but time will tell.
 
A better route would be (I think) to just buy a Legal Shield type of policy that covers any attorney costs for any reason. Those are fine, but when you tie the payment to certain acts you see an issue like this one. Thinking aloud here.
 
So it's basically like car insurance I pay every month .but if I drink and drive and cause a ACCEDENT.
My insurance doesn't cover me.
Great I get that .but if I pay for self-defense insurance.and I murder someone.
It doesn't cover me.
Great I get that .
But to say I can't buy insurance for a lawyer in advance of a self defense Shooting .
Well .I don't plan on drinking and driving eather.
So I don't need car insurance .
Because every ACCEDENT I get in will be the other guy or girls fault.right.
This is a political hit job on the NRA.
 
Typically insurance NEVER pays in advance of a determination of fault / guilt / liability / etc. It seems these policies pay a fee up front to allow the insured to cover defense costs. This is not a problem if the insured eventually is found innocent. It is illegal in every state for to indemnify illegal acts, so (hate to say) the state was correct in this. So if in the end the insured is found guilty, the policy now covered an illegal act. That's the problem with these policies.

Of course, since it's related to firearms the issue becomes a punching bag in the press, with you and me (gun owners) being the bag.

I understand the logic, but generally the law does not look at maybes and mights. Having gone thru law school myself the
premise is missing something. If I would to argue this case, it would be the People have not yet determined guilt.
Therefore there is no criminal act. The insurance is not defending the criminal act, it is defending the accusation.
The Law however is trying to say if you are found guilty the insurance would be illegal.
My problem is the state is assuming the people will find a guilty verdict. It would actually be no difference then
having a lawyer on retainer for times when you break the law and need help. Many very rich people use prepaid lawyers to
take care of Tickets, arrests etc..........how is this different? Perhaps the NRA needs to reword the idea and design a lawyer that can be retained period not just for gun issues. My wife where she works she gets counsel on all sorts of issues including God forbid criminal and she pays a fee each month for that. Because I am not a lawyer, never perused that studied business and civil law.
Something just says this is wrong....but again I see where they are coming from, but seems like a front assault based on some small facts of how the wording is on this coverage.
 
MAYBE THEY SHOULD HAVE THE BAD GUYS BUY LIFE INSURANCE.
and make sure they tell them if you get shot in the act of a crime .
You get nothing.
And see how many sign up for it
 
I don't think this is what the insurance covered. From the article it stated an upfront payment was made to cover defense costs. If that is true, then there is the problem. This is different than having a policy to reimburse you for attorney costs after the fact.

I agree it's an NRA hit job. If this was insurance for pretty much anything else I'd bet that all the state would have done is issued a cease and desist order and threaten with a fine if they continued.
 
There are a number of threads on topic around here.

I think one said the law was about the NRA advertising/selling without proper licensing.
The insurance is underwritten by another firm. But they didn't have what evers were needed.

There are other pols who have wanted to force gun owners to have insurance. You shoot someone, you have to be able to make them whole/pay for medical etc. How are you going to do that?

This strikes me as one of those stories we need to be careful on the facts.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top