Starting to think that for around $20/month having some kind of defensive use coverage is becoming less of a no-brainer. It might be just me but it seems like there's a coverage war going on among providers, just like any "insurance" carrier these days. I never want to be in a position that I wouldn't choose to protect myself or someone else because of the legal fight after. There are two types of insurance, the one you use and depend on and the other you gladly pay the premium never hoping to use. I imagine there are dozens of providers so I just mentioned a few that I am aware of.

Question:
So, if you currently have carry legal coverage, or thinking about it, who do have or leaning towards and in the comments you can elaborate what made them stand out enough to earn your trust. Or Other. Thanks

Choices:
USCCA
CCWSAFE
Right To Bear
Attorneys On Retainer
Armed Attorneys
Other

 

I'm interested in this as well.
This week I did take USCCA basic concealed carry class.
It was pretty much a requirement gathering, but I did learn a few things in the class.

My wife works for a bougee Dallas law firm, but they do corporate law, not criminal.
It would be nice to have someone to call if the SHTF..

I'm leaning towards the more budget-minded Right To Bear. AI did a decent comparison of the major plans. Some are insurance and some are legal firms that have insurance policies backing them up. Bottom line I don't want to be in a holding cell without some sort of ball already rolling.

I'm gonna need to work on my Dicken Drill . USCCA certainly has the big bucks, hopefully that is for legal defense more than marketing

This thread is a reminder for me to stop procrastinating and sign up with AOR (Attorneys On Retainer). Been meaning to do that a while ago.

I have to wonder if they are like other insurance companies that love to market their services and collect premiums, but hate to pay out claims and will do anything to avoid it.

I won't say, they "will do anything to avoid it,' but avoiding payouts is how profit is made in the insurance industry.

I will say, "Read the fine print," b/c a lot of ppl believe their carry insurance will go to bat for them no matter the circumstances, but that is not the case. Some of the big ones will have a meeting w/ the client after a shooting. If the carrier doesn't believe the client has a case for justifiable self-defense, then the carrier won't represent the client.

Some of the carriers will allow you to choose your attorney. Some give you no choice and will assign one from their list. To me, this would be like an auto insurance carrier telling you you can only take your car to be repaired at their choice of shop.

Read the fine print!

Years ago I checked into some and most were more of a marketing operation and very few were true "insurance" companies.
Read the fine print and also check with your state insurance regulator to see if they're registered.
Maybe give a more local well regarded criminal defense attorney a call to see what they think too.

quote:

Years ago I checked into some and most were more of a marketing operation and very few were true "insurance" companies.
R

Neighbor and I went to a USCAA meeting at a LGS in Daytona, nice presentation, I asked lots of questions having presented this prior on SF and that turned out to be the case at the time.

It did give you a phone number and card to carry so you had someone to call, didn't really offer up any insurance in the manner in which some believe of either A) covering all legal costs up front, or B) reimbursement of all costs.

Most were not "insurance" in the traditional sense of the term.

Yep, the only "insurance" aspect of these plans would appear to be to reimburse for loss of your property (firearm) or lost wages due to being detained and/or time spent in court proceedings (indemnification). The real purpose should be legal defense. The number of attorneys in your locale should be a consideration. I would hope that with an obvious Affirmative Defense the DA or grand jury would quickly no-bill the case but that's what the coverage is attempting to secure I imagine.

There's also the claw-back in the off chance that the facts don't go your way and you have to plea and you owe for all costs..not the best.

A little more involved than choosing ATT or Verizon