I'm considering signing up for insurance in case I should ever be involved in a SD shooting. The issuers claim that ultimately it's a reimbursement after you're acquitted or charges are dropped because 'states' (plural) laws won't allow coverage for a criminal offense. If this is true then it wouldn't matter which one I sign up with. Is this true?
Self Defense Insurance
- Thread starter Fred S
- Start date
- Status
AZAndy
Member
You might find this thread to be of interest. Welcome to the forum!
CodeSection
Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2011
- Messages
- 251
Be careful of surveys. Compare all providers and read the fine print. One popular provider provides some education. However, upon further reading their own material, they decide if your case is worthy to cover. In addition, this provider is the only one that I have seen that uses emotional charged words like, "worry", "concern", "low bidder", "worries", "my life"', etc. to put down their competitors so that they look better.
The CEO of that provider would not compare their features to others like is seen in the link below. Plus, the CEO stated they had $250,000 bond available and "That is much as anyone else in the CCW aftermath industry will do, and many will only go to $10,000." That was an intentional inaccurate statement. CCWSafe has a $1,000,000 bond.
This particular provider has a cleaverly written "Buyers Guide" which does a decent job of introducing doubts about other insurance or pre-paid legal services. It was intentionally written to try to convince you not to use a competitor by using emotional charged words. They do not compare their features to others like in the link below. Personally, I do not agree with their marketing tactics or statements.
I worry about their statement of solvency or limited funds. A $1,000,000 fund seems so small.
They write:
"How solvent is the Network?
We have never operated in the red and have never incurred debt. Instead, we started the Network conservatively and always maintained a positive bank balance, with no liabilities. Since starting at zero in 2008, we have built up our Legal Defense Fund (at the time of this update, April 2017) to over $1,000,000 having drawn on it to pay in excess of $100,000 in attorney fees on behalf of fourteen members."
I reached out to the CEO and wrote:
"While I currently have CCWSafe for mainly any criminal issues and USCCA with $1,000,000 for civil liability issues, I am open minded to why you believe your membership is better when compared to the following table from the CCWSafe's website https://ccwsafe.com/page/Quick-Comparison-of-Service ?
It would be great to compare without the emotional charge words like "worry, worries, concern, low bid, my life" etc. Those words could be easily said about your membership just as I used your word "worry" above. If you can, just compare facts."
Sadly, he stopped posting.....
So, my advice, do your own research and decide what provider you believe will cover you the best. Read their agreement. I would use caution if their membership allows them to determine whether they want to cover you after an incident takes place.
I would use caution if any of them asks "do others cover appeals?" When they themselves do not cover appeals. One provider makes this statement almost as if to imply they cover appeals. Marketing zeal... Try to go with a provider that eliminates a self serving conflict of interest situation on their part when possible.
Good luck!
The CEO of that provider would not compare their features to others like is seen in the link below. Plus, the CEO stated they had $250,000 bond available and "That is much as anyone else in the CCW aftermath industry will do, and many will only go to $10,000." That was an intentional inaccurate statement. CCWSafe has a $1,000,000 bond.
This particular provider has a cleaverly written "Buyers Guide" which does a decent job of introducing doubts about other insurance or pre-paid legal services. It was intentionally written to try to convince you not to use a competitor by using emotional charged words. They do not compare their features to others like in the link below. Personally, I do not agree with their marketing tactics or statements.
I worry about their statement of solvency or limited funds. A $1,000,000 fund seems so small.
They write:
"How solvent is the Network?
We have never operated in the red and have never incurred debt. Instead, we started the Network conservatively and always maintained a positive bank balance, with no liabilities. Since starting at zero in 2008, we have built up our Legal Defense Fund (at the time of this update, April 2017) to over $1,000,000 having drawn on it to pay in excess of $100,000 in attorney fees on behalf of fourteen members."
I reached out to the CEO and wrote:
"While I currently have CCWSafe for mainly any criminal issues and USCCA with $1,000,000 for civil liability issues, I am open minded to why you believe your membership is better when compared to the following table from the CCWSafe's website https://ccwsafe.com/page/Quick-Comparison-of-Service ?
It would be great to compare without the emotional charge words like "worry, worries, concern, low bid, my life" etc. Those words could be easily said about your membership just as I used your word "worry" above. If you can, just compare facts."
Sadly, he stopped posting.....
So, my advice, do your own research and decide what provider you believe will cover you the best. Read their agreement. I would use caution if their membership allows them to determine whether they want to cover you after an incident takes place.
I would use caution if any of them asks "do others cover appeals?" When they themselves do not cover appeals. One provider makes this statement almost as if to imply they cover appeals. Marketing zeal... Try to go with a provider that eliminates a self serving conflict of interest situation on their part when possible.
Good luck!
svtruth
Member
Has possession of such insurance ever been advanced as evidence that the gun owner was planning on using the gun?
IIRC, after Zimmerman's successful self defense, at least in the press/commentary, certain people argued that his carrying a gun meant he intended to shoot someone.
IIRC, after Zimmerman's successful self defense, at least in the press/commentary, certain people argued that his carrying a gun meant he intended to shoot someone.
In a related post on pretty much the same subject: https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...l-carry-insurance.819689/page-3#post-10545884 One of the attorneys who moderates this forum posted that it cannot.
That's roughly $7,200 per member and is less than half of what an acquaitence had pay as a retainer to his attorney when he had to engage counsel.
And do they spell out the criteria they use in making that decision? Or is based entirely upon whether your case can be resolved cheaply? It's like the insurance companies with pre-existing condition limitations; if you needed $50 worth of drugs to cure you, they paid it. If you needed $50,000, they sent out someone to go over your medical records and look for something they could use to deny coverage. Seems to me like you pay into this shared-risk pool and will only be reimbursed if your need was so cheap you really didn't need them in the first place.
CodeSection
Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2011
- Messages
- 251
hdwhit, I'm not sure you what point you are trying to make. In the first quote, you requoted my quote from the vendor's website. In the second quote, you correctly requoted. HOWEVER, I never wrote anything that you suggested I wrote in your third quote. I'm not sure where you came up with that quote.....
I think we agree on the following: 1) the mentioned vendor can decline additional funds for ANY reason beyond the initial $25,000 bond cap and 2) the civil liability defense is just as important.
Unlike insurance or pre-paid legal services plans where there are written terms of service and published exclusions, the one membership vendor has no such items. They can decline coverage FOR ANY reason! It could be because there is not enough money in their reserve fund or it could be simply if is too complicated and too costly to defend. If you have an attorney look at the membership benefits, I suspect your attorney will tell you that they provided adequate notice to you they may not give additional funds to your defense, therefore, you would not have any recourse against them.
As to the civil liability defense cost coming from the attacker or even an innocent bystander, that is why I carry and highly recommend USCCA's $1,000,000 liability coverage. Lastly, CCWSafe is not set up as an reimbursement plan. It is pre-paid legal services.
I think we agree on the following: 1) the mentioned vendor can decline additional funds for ANY reason beyond the initial $25,000 bond cap and 2) the civil liability defense is just as important.
Unlike insurance or pre-paid legal services plans where there are written terms of service and published exclusions, the one membership vendor has no such items. They can decline coverage FOR ANY reason! It could be because there is not enough money in their reserve fund or it could be simply if is too complicated and too costly to defend. If you have an attorney look at the membership benefits, I suspect your attorney will tell you that they provided adequate notice to you they may not give additional funds to your defense, therefore, you would not have any recourse against them.
As to the civil liability defense cost coming from the attacker or even an innocent bystander, that is why I carry and highly recommend USCCA's $1,000,000 liability coverage. Lastly, CCWSafe is not set up as an reimbursement plan. It is pre-paid legal services.
Thanks for the feedback. The question of they deciding if your case is worthy to take seems obvious. For instance if I stick up a store and the owner pulls a gun and I shoot him, would ANY of the other companies take my case? I would think they all would review the particulars and make a decision if it was worthy or not. Also, I don't know if a fund of $1 million since 2008 is good, bad, or indifferent. And about helping 14 people since 2008 how often does this happen, and I haven't read anything from anyone who was involved in such a situation. I'd appreciate your opinion.
CodeSection
Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2011
- Messages
- 251
I think all companies/vendors would not cover your example. That is not my point. The other companies list their coverage, term of service and exclusions in writing. The above vendor simply does not. They cleverly write why they will decide in the future to provide future funds or not so that the reader believes they will cover a "legit" scenario. However, they never list their criteria in writing. They let the reader envision what might be covered. They never say they will cover any claim (legit or not) with additional funding. Again, they decide what they want to cover.
Insurance companies are regulated in each state by the Dept. of Insurance. One such items of Dept of Insurance covers are consumer complaints about coverages and exclusions to name a few. State Bars handle licensing and complaints with attorneys. Prepaid legal service complaints may be made through the State Bar, but also be made with the state's Attorney General, Consumer Fraud Division. Both insurance companies and prepaid legal services have written coverages, term of services and exclusions.
You simply have no recourse like above regarding a membership that does not qualify what they cover. In their own marketing material, they do not say what is covered. As stated in a previous post, they have put you on notice that they are not obligated to cover you.
As for the money they have disbursed over the years, it appears to be very, very low. Depending upon where one lives, criminal attorneys may charge $475 to $1,000 per hour or even higher. Then when you tack on perhaps a junior attorney, a paralegal, and experts, the expense really adds up. While I realize each situation is different. Based upon the vendor's website, the average that hdwhit wrote above (roughly $7,200) is extremely low.
I hope this helps...
Insurance companies are regulated in each state by the Dept. of Insurance. One such items of Dept of Insurance covers are consumer complaints about coverages and exclusions to name a few. State Bars handle licensing and complaints with attorneys. Prepaid legal service complaints may be made through the State Bar, but also be made with the state's Attorney General, Consumer Fraud Division. Both insurance companies and prepaid legal services have written coverages, term of services and exclusions.
You simply have no recourse like above regarding a membership that does not qualify what they cover. In their own marketing material, they do not say what is covered. As stated in a previous post, they have put you on notice that they are not obligated to cover you.
As for the money they have disbursed over the years, it appears to be very, very low. Depending upon where one lives, criminal attorneys may charge $475 to $1,000 per hour or even higher. Then when you tack on perhaps a junior attorney, a paralegal, and experts, the expense really adds up. While I realize each situation is different. Based upon the vendor's website, the average that hdwhit wrote above (roughly $7,200) is extremely low.
I hope this helps...
Sebastian the Ibis
Member
Fred,
Welcome to the Forum. These insurance threads sprout like weeds. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if these companies hire shills to post most of these (not saying you are). As far as I am concerned all of these "insurance" policies are garbage high pressure marketing firms. I am not sure any of them are actual licensed insurance companies either.
If you don't believe me, just ask any of them for their actual policy document (i.e. the legal contract) which specifies what exactly you will receive for your premium payments. My guess is you get zilch, if they actually send you the policy document it will limit and exclude everything so that your maximum recovery is zilch. If I am wrong, post a copy of it, I'd like to see it.
Welcome to the Forum. These insurance threads sprout like weeds. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if these companies hire shills to post most of these (not saying you are). As far as I am concerned all of these "insurance" policies are garbage high pressure marketing firms. I am not sure any of them are actual licensed insurance companies either.
If you don't believe me, just ask any of them for their actual policy document (i.e. the legal contract) which specifies what exactly you will receive for your premium payments. My guess is you get zilch, if they actually send you the policy document it will limit and exclude everything so that your maximum recovery is zilch. If I am wrong, post a copy of it, I'd like to see it.
It has been an exhausting week reading about what everybody's offering and trying to read between the lines. My head feels like it's ready to explode. I'm really leaning to ACLDN or CCWSAFE. Anything Mas is associated with is ok by me and the 'only' $1 million in their fund doesn't scare me. On their site are a couple of PDF's and one is copyrighted 2016 and they had $600K. So now they have over $1 mil. They're moving in the right direction. What I like about CCWSAFE is they have (IMHO) the foremost authority on Florida law, Jon Gutmacher, I read his book, have conversed with him by e-mail previously about different matters, and I live in Fl. What bothers me most is that not one person has posted who has been involved in a SD incident who had any kind of coverage so we could really find out if they do what we think they say they do. Calling them or e-mailing them only goes so far. Unless it's in the policy it doesn't mean a thing, and you don't see the policy to read the fine print until you pay. It kind of sticks if you ask me. The story of that semi driver scares the heck out of me, and it was a false accusation.
george burns
Member
It says right there in the Policy from USCAA, that if you are uing your weapon in the commision of a crime, you are not covered. I am sure that this is just common sense. On the second point, there are testamonials available either on the site of on the policy. It seems to be decent coverage. I even asked them about the exclusion for Narcotics,"pain meds" and they explained as long as a doctor prescribed them you are fine. My doctor carries and knows I do, "as we speak about guns a lot". Only because I wanted to be sure that if my doctor gives me something for chronic pain, I am ok with it.
They have to spell out certain exclusions, you can't expect them to cover you if you are a junkie holding up a gas station, just as your homeowners insurance won't cover you if you burn your own house down.
That's the point. You have a policy to read, I don't. And I used that example because a case was being made about a certain vendor who decided whether or not to take a case, and I figured they all would do just that in case someone was doing something criminal. Thanks for your comment. I'm getting closer.
CodeSection
Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2011
- Messages
- 251
Fred, I really don't know what or where you are reading.....here is CCWSafe's term of service posted on their website that plainly lists what is covered and what their requirements are and what their exclusions are: https://ccwsafe.com/page/terms
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/faq/ Perhaps calling them and asking for a sample of the policy might be in order....
I think most people would be advised not to discuss or post anything about a SD incident for obvious reasons. Last year a mechanic in the Midwest posted about a SD shooting that he was involved in the day before on another forum. Several of us warned him not to continue his postings (which he ignored) and we finally asked the mods to remove the post for his protection.
Everyone seems to have opinions. You need to take all in, continue your research and make a decision that makes sense to you. Does it really matter of someone's real life experience with one of the vendors? Without knowing all the facts and situation or listening to testimony, how will you make an informed decision?
If someone comes on this thread and states "abc company did not defend me or honor their membership, or insurance, or service obligation, would you believe them? The abc company will not disclose their reasons. Matter of fact, they probably could very easily state " As much as we would like to defend our position and explain why we denied coverage, due to privacy laws we are not authorized to discuss the case."
So, again I ask, who would you believe? Let's say there was a positive posting, without all the details, how could you envision the same scenario would happen to you. Perhaps, the magnitude of your SD incident is way higher than the poster's.
Good luck.....and no, you are not watering weeds.
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/faq/ Perhaps calling them and asking for a sample of the policy might be in order....
I think most people would be advised not to discuss or post anything about a SD incident for obvious reasons. Last year a mechanic in the Midwest posted about a SD shooting that he was involved in the day before on another forum. Several of us warned him not to continue his postings (which he ignored) and we finally asked the mods to remove the post for his protection.
Everyone seems to have opinions. You need to take all in, continue your research and make a decision that makes sense to you. Does it really matter of someone's real life experience with one of the vendors? Without knowing all the facts and situation or listening to testimony, how will you make an informed decision?
If someone comes on this thread and states "abc company did not defend me or honor their membership, or insurance, or service obligation, would you believe them? The abc company will not disclose their reasons. Matter of fact, they probably could very easily state " As much as we would like to defend our position and explain why we denied coverage, due to privacy laws we are not authorized to discuss the case."
So, again I ask, who would you believe? Let's say there was a positive posting, without all the details, how could you envision the same scenario would happen to you. Perhaps, the magnitude of your SD incident is way higher than the poster's.
Good luck.....and no, you are not watering weeds.
george burns
Member
They will send you the pamphlet that spells it out if you call them. I figure in this crazy world of everyone suing for just about anything, you really can't afford not to have some type of coverage.
Most people don't have a lawyer specializing in gun laws. My attorney didn't and screwed up my situation and made it worse. Luckily for me the police had no case to begin with, and it went away, but spending a night in a cell is something you never want to do. Most lawyers have no idea of gun laws, unless they study them and take a course.
Hanzo581
Member
Can you blame them if they did hire shills to promote this? The odds of someone being in a self defense shooting are astronomical, so this is basically free money. Another example of preying on peoples fear for profit.
Sebastian the Ibis
Member
I can't blame them, an undercapitalized unregulated "insurance" scheme is the best business there is. Collect premiums (free $$) and apologize for unfortunate circumstances beyond what anyone envisioned if big claims come due.
It doesn't matter if it is credit default swaps or self defense insurance. It's an unregulated product offered by folks without the deep pockets to stand behind their promises (do you really think any of these are reinsured by Buffet or Lyod's?). Also these are obscure enough that they will probably avoid most state insurance regulators.
It doesn't matter if it is credit default swaps or self defense insurance. It's an unregulated product offered by folks without the deep pockets to stand behind their promises (do you really think any of these are reinsured by Buffet or Lyod's?). Also these are obscure enough that they will probably avoid most state insurance regulators.
I have generally stayed out of this sort of scuffle but having an uncle with extensive criminal and liability trial experience, having a sister who worked as an executive in the industry, working in legal education, and seeing litigation up close to relatives and friends have left me with some lessons.
One, insurance companies are not looking out for you (fuzzy happy tv ads anyone) but rather their stockholders/execs and if you really think that the regulators in each state give a damn--think again--the key word is regulatory capture. There is a reason for the McCarran Act and no federal regulation. The state regulators are there mainly to keep the out and out crooks from running scams and the like from operating, not to prevent insurance companies from legally taking advantage of individuals through contracts.
Insurance companies hire actuaries to make bets based on mathematics on how much they will have to pay off versus the premiums charged and if the payoffs are not there, they either exit the business, tweak their policies to pay out less, or raise premiums. They also hire lawyers to make sure that contracts minimize their exposure to payoffs and accountants to keep up with the finances. Those that reimburse you after the trial finds you not guilty represent a sucker's bet because you as the individual are bearing all of the risk. How many of you could raise $25,000 in cash immediately that will be gone forever if your bond is $250000? How many of you will be able to keep your job if you can't make bail and remain in jail until the trial?
I have seen insurance companies quibble (including the famous Lloyds of London) on coverage, slow walk reimbursements, etc. until they have to be sued to comply with their obligations. If you want to see skullduggery, a prominent insurance company that is a household name, denied coverage for a black homeowner whose house was burned by racists. The insurance company despite losing at every level up to the State Supreme Court, held that the homeowners provoked the racist neighbors into the action and thus the insurance company did not have to pay. Ask an honest trial lawyer representing plaintiffs about what they think about insurance companies and their tactics--you might get an education.
That being said, I have insurance but only as part of a plan--a general umbrella liability rider on your home policy is usually the best bet for liability versus stand alone policies (unless you have a cheap, totally unreliable crappy company). I have fire extinguishers scattered throughout the house and in cars, I have smoke detectors that detect both smoky fires and hot ones using both batteries and some are hardwired, have an alarm system, have a household escape plan, try to be proactive about issues like trees, home repair, wiring, etc. and so on. The idea is that insurance is part of the plan for risk management but not the whole deal.
The moral of the story is that if you have firearms and plan on using them in the gravest extreme to defend your life (leave the whole property thing out of it), then insurance/league membership etc. may help mitigate the damage but won't by itself resolve your problem. Assuming the most important priority is to not be dead, then the second, is to not be imprisoned or executed, the third would probably be not to be bankrupt.
Thus, education comes first--pay for adequate training, practice, educate yourself on the law in your state and states where you might travel, create a self defense plan and lifestyle that reduces risk, learn self aid and buddy care, harden your house, educate yourself on likely scenarios, know your firearms, etc. Buying insurance/membership is the least of your worries--if you use a firearm inappropriately and say something like it just went off--no insurance company will do much to help you at that point. Insurance of whatever type--just like firearms, are backups for when things go south but no substitute for proper training and education.
Recent attendance at a legal seminar reemphasized something--Mas Ayoob emphasized that the problem with self defense trials is that usually it almost requires the defendant to tell their story to the police at some point and possibly on the stand due to it being an affirmative defense. To tell that story adequately, requires that the defendant be able to explain their thought process--that is where the education, training,etc. becomes invaluable because the jury wants the defendant to provide evidence why no other reasonable alternative was possible. With proper training, the defendant can effectively explain themselves, have access to corroborating witnesses which often can be treated as experts, can introduce specific training material to buttress their case, and so on. That is also why you should always be prudent in what you say in person and online because prior words can hurt you in a court of law.
One, insurance companies are not looking out for you (fuzzy happy tv ads anyone) but rather their stockholders/execs and if you really think that the regulators in each state give a damn--think again--the key word is regulatory capture. There is a reason for the McCarran Act and no federal regulation. The state regulators are there mainly to keep the out and out crooks from running scams and the like from operating, not to prevent insurance companies from legally taking advantage of individuals through contracts.
Insurance companies hire actuaries to make bets based on mathematics on how much they will have to pay off versus the premiums charged and if the payoffs are not there, they either exit the business, tweak their policies to pay out less, or raise premiums. They also hire lawyers to make sure that contracts minimize their exposure to payoffs and accountants to keep up with the finances. Those that reimburse you after the trial finds you not guilty represent a sucker's bet because you as the individual are bearing all of the risk. How many of you could raise $25,000 in cash immediately that will be gone forever if your bond is $250000? How many of you will be able to keep your job if you can't make bail and remain in jail until the trial?
I have seen insurance companies quibble (including the famous Lloyds of London) on coverage, slow walk reimbursements, etc. until they have to be sued to comply with their obligations. If you want to see skullduggery, a prominent insurance company that is a household name, denied coverage for a black homeowner whose house was burned by racists. The insurance company despite losing at every level up to the State Supreme Court, held that the homeowners provoked the racist neighbors into the action and thus the insurance company did not have to pay. Ask an honest trial lawyer representing plaintiffs about what they think about insurance companies and their tactics--you might get an education.
That being said, I have insurance but only as part of a plan--a general umbrella liability rider on your home policy is usually the best bet for liability versus stand alone policies (unless you have a cheap, totally unreliable crappy company). I have fire extinguishers scattered throughout the house and in cars, I have smoke detectors that detect both smoky fires and hot ones using both batteries and some are hardwired, have an alarm system, have a household escape plan, try to be proactive about issues like trees, home repair, wiring, etc. and so on. The idea is that insurance is part of the plan for risk management but not the whole deal.
The moral of the story is that if you have firearms and plan on using them in the gravest extreme to defend your life (leave the whole property thing out of it), then insurance/league membership etc. may help mitigate the damage but won't by itself resolve your problem. Assuming the most important priority is to not be dead, then the second, is to not be imprisoned or executed, the third would probably be not to be bankrupt.
Thus, education comes first--pay for adequate training, practice, educate yourself on the law in your state and states where you might travel, create a self defense plan and lifestyle that reduces risk, learn self aid and buddy care, harden your house, educate yourself on likely scenarios, know your firearms, etc. Buying insurance/membership is the least of your worries--if you use a firearm inappropriately and say something like it just went off--no insurance company will do much to help you at that point. Insurance of whatever type--just like firearms, are backups for when things go south but no substitute for proper training and education.
Recent attendance at a legal seminar reemphasized something--Mas Ayoob emphasized that the problem with self defense trials is that usually it almost requires the defendant to tell their story to the police at some point and possibly on the stand due to it being an affirmative defense. To tell that story adequately, requires that the defendant be able to explain their thought process--that is where the education, training,etc. becomes invaluable because the jury wants the defendant to provide evidence why no other reasonable alternative was possible. With proper training, the defendant can effectively explain themselves, have access to corroborating witnesses which often can be treated as experts, can introduce specific training material to buttress their case, and so on. That is also why you should always be prudent in what you say in person and online because prior words can hurt you in a court of law.
george burns
Member
Having exprienced the law in action, even when they are dead wrong, you still have to hire a Lawyer and then be subject to a civil trial; after the initial ciminal charges , "if it goes that far, A decent attorney is going to ask you for a 10 thousand dollar retainer, "minimum" many will ask for more, then the bail, "if there is any" and associated costs tha you incur if you go to trial
By the way, most Umbrella policys don't cover the use of a firearm, I had a 3 million dollar policy in NY 40 years ago, and it didn't even then. So you are lookin at a minimal amount of money. Like 13 dollars a month for Bail, attorney fees, and Legal fees up to 250 grand, in total, 50 for legal, etc with the silver policy from USCAA. If that is too much money for piece of mind, think of it as 2 boxes of ammo.
By the way, most Umbrella policys don't cover the use of a firearm, I had a 3 million dollar policy in NY 40 years ago, and it didn't even then. So you are lookin at a minimal amount of money. Like 13 dollars a month for Bail, attorney fees, and Legal fees up to 250 grand, in total, 50 for legal, etc with the silver policy from USCAA. If that is too much money for piece of mind, think of it as 2 boxes of ammo.
Last edited:
JeffG
Member
Seeking self defense insurance means two things...you are betting your are going to screw up a self defense situation, The insurers are betting that you won't screw it up. If you are betting that you are going to screw up a self defense situation, spend more money on training.
- Status
