Are you carrying insurance on yourself your family and your firearms in case there's an event where you have to defend yourself ? NRA and USCCA I know are some choices
I think insurance is over priced and deductibles are threw the roof but in this case for lets say $15 a month you can have $500 mil in reserves for anything that goes wrong and a 2A lawyer that can bail you out of a situation that's a small price for peace of mind and not being locked up. And I'm not an ins salesman just a customer.Seems to me like that could be used against you in the case you ever needed it. I'm sure the prosecutor would love to point out that you got insurance for just this occasion. What are the chances you will ever need it? Full disclosure, this opinion is from someone who absolutely loathes insurance companies.
Are you carrying insurance on yourself your family and your firearms in case there's an event where you have to defend yourself ? NRA and USCCA I know are some choices
That's who I chose a couple years ago too.I have been for over the last year. I have USCCA.
Note to self: Do not start a fight with Dougie or red dawn.
I have heard USCCA was basically a scam and that they have a lot of fine print reasons why they won't payout. Also they only pay you after you are acquitted so you would have to come up with the money upfront. So unless you have $500 mil in you checking account you really don't have the coverage you think. I could be wrong but that is what I have read. Doesn't give me much confidence.
Was this first hand experience you heard it from or internet chatter?
Just from reading reviews online. Apparently there are some people that have tried to use it without success but it's not exactly verifiable.Was this first hand experience you heard it from or internet chatter?
Right the odds are extremely small that you would have to use it. What made me weary is that they tout the amount of coverage you have but the don't clearly mention that you only get the money after you're proven innocent. It makes sense from their perspective because they are not going to just give you $500 mill and then wait to find out if you are guilty or not.What matters is whether or not it's true.
Self defense shooting are rare. SD shootings that are prosecuted are rarer still. This might be something to do in certain liberal enclaves with super political, left wing DAs, but it seems useless to have in most juristictions.
I think based on the amount of coverage you want it's available if necessary. They post bail and give you a lawyer to represent you and cover damages is what I readRight the odds are extremely small that you would have to use it. What made me weary is that they tout the amount of coverage you have but the don't clearly mention that you only get the money after you're proven innocent. It makes sense from their perspective because they are not going to just give you $500 mill and then wait to find out if you are guilty or not.
Right. The problem that I have read that people complain about is that it covers "self defense" situations. Usually if it is going to trial the prosecution is arguing that it was assault, murder etc. and the insurance can refuse to cover you until it is proven that it was what they define as "self defense". basically you are not going to go to jail for self defense but if you get locked up for murder they are not going to help you until you can prove it was self defense with your own money.I think based on the amount of coverage you want it's available if necessary. They post bail and give you a lawyer to represent you and cover damages is what I read
I think if you're going to pull a gun on someone for any reason you better know your laws. You can't shoot some one in the back that's trying to flee the scene. You can't shoot an intruder without your life being threatened if you abide by the law this insurance is there for you.Right. The problem that I have read that people complain about is that it covers "self defense" situations. Usually if it is going to trial the prosecution is arguing that it was assault, murder etc. and the insurance can refuse to cover you until it is proven that it was what they define as "self defense". basically you are not going to go to jail for self defense but if you get locked up for murder they are not going to help you until you can prove it was self defense with your own money.
Right. The problem that I have read that people complain about is that it covers "self defense" situations. Usually if it is going to trial the prosecution is arguing that it was assault, murder etc. and the insurance can refuse to cover you until it is proven that it was what they define as "self defense". basically you are not going to go to jail for self defense but if you get locked up for murder they are not going to help you until you can prove it was self defense with your own money.
Right but I think you missed my pointI think if you're going to pull a gun on someone for any reason you better know your laws. You can't shoot some one in the back that's trying to flee the scene. You can't shoot an intruder without your life being threatened if you abide by the law this insurance is there for you.
I think if you're going to pull a gun on someone for any reason you better know your laws. You can't shoot some one in the back that's trying to flee the scene. You can't shoot an intruder without your life being threatened if you abide by the law this insurance is there for you.
You are guilty until proven innocentRight but I think you missed my point