• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

So.... USCCA is pretty crap.

M1911 said:
Yes, they have a clause that they can recoup legal fees. The CEO claims in his video that they have never done so. OK, if they have never tried to recoup legal fees then why do you have that clause in the contract?
Click to expand...


That's not EXACTLY what he said. He said that "the insurance company has never recouped payments made on behalf of a USCCA member". That is lawyer double-speak. It means - yes we have tried. No, we were not successful. He chose his words very carefully - and that's not lost on me.
 
Last edited:
This thread does raise an interesting question though... For those who do not choose to buy/carry such insurance, what is the best way to handle ourselves if we're involved in a self-defense shooting? Aside from the #1 rule - STFU. I would venture to guess, 99% of us don't have a lawyer on retainer. Probably have no idea of the lawyers that specialize in this field either. It would be pretty cool if we could compile a list of lawyers and law firms that have expertise here. We could then put the numbers in our phones, hang them on the fridge for a spouse to call on our behalf, etc.

IDK that telling my girlfriend to get on NES and track down @Rob Boudrie is a great legal defense strategy... Maybe an org like Comm2A could compile a list?
 
Last edited:
ThePreBanMan said:
This thread does raise an interesting question though... For those who do not choose to buy/carry such insurance, what is the best way to handle ourselves if we're involved in a self-defense shooting? Aside from the #1 rule - STFU. I would venture to guess, 99% of us don't have a lawyer on retainer. Probably have no idea of the lawyers that specialize in this field either. It would be pretty cool if we could compile a list of lawyers and law firms that have expertise here. We could then put the numbers in our phones, hang them on the fridge for a spouse to call on our behalf, etc.
Click to expand...
I have @nstassel phone number in my phone. I would call him. I assume I would need to provide some significant amount upfront.
 
M1911 said:
I have @nstassel phone number in my phone. I would call him. I assume I would need to provide some significant amount upfront.
Click to expand...

Sure. We're talking about hiring a lawyer. There are going to be significant costs. This would be a list of competent and specifically experienced attorneys available for hire. I would much rather take my chances with a local attorney with experience handling self-defense shoots AND who is a local practicing attorney than hope for help from a law firm practicing in a state halfway across the country.
 
I have read through this thread as I have the other threads regarding CCW Insurance/Pre Paid Attorney. The threads were quite informative and helpful in my decision to purchase CCW Insurance.

I don’t think we will ever come to a general consensus as to whether or not these plans are worthwhile or not. Part of that is everybody’s circumstances are likely to be different.

I am not sure if what I have for CCW Insurance is worth it or not. But the way I look at it is like this. When I look at what I (as with most other gun owners) spend on Guns, Ammo, Safes, Accessories, Optics, Reloading supplies, Licensing Fees, Range Memberships, on and on the CCW Safe cost is a very small drop in a very large bucket.

I hope I never need to use it, and who knows if they are going to help me or not. But I figure if I need to shoot somebody the CCW coverage is more likely to help me than that extra case of ammo, or that red dot sight that I never really needed.
 
M1911 said:
I have @nstassel phone number in my phone. I would call him. I assume I would need to provide some significant amount upfront.
Click to expand...

During a conversation with a criminal defense attorney experienced in the field of firearms litigation back in 2005 I inquired what one should expect in the unfortunate event they had to engage defense council to mount a self-defense case in answer to a charge of shooting another person.

The attorney informed me that if the facts of the case were clear cut in supporting the plea that the shooting was in fact a case of self-defense, then one would have to pay $50,000 up front to get their legal representation started.

If.......on the other hand........the facts of the shooting situation were in the least bit murky........... then the staring fee would rise to $200,000 to get the defense representation started and the cost would substantially increase depending on just how "murky" the actual facts of the incident proved out to be.

A family member who was once a senior supervising attorney for the state of New York told me that the best professional advice that he could share with me was to try and avoid as much as was possible becoming involved in the court system in the first place as even a not guilty jury decision would in all likelihood cause a tremendous amount of financial pain to me and my immediate family.

The following 2 articles are worth reading if for no other reason that they provide a point of view that has some merit to them:


www.activeresponsetraining.net

Tactical Training Scenario- Random Gunfire

For the last couple years, there has been an epidemic of mass shootings targeting people in bars, malls, and outdoor parties. These have generally been gang members targeting other gang members. It's spring. We
www.activeresponsetraining.net www.activeresponsetraining.net
 
Last edited:
Harry Christopher said:
During a conversation with a criminal defense attorney experienced in the field of firearms litigation back in 2005 I inquired what one should expect in the unfortunate event they had to engage defense council to mount a self-defense case in answer to a charge of shooting another person.

The attorney informed me that if the facts of the case were clear cut in supporting the plea that the shooting was in fact a case of self-defense, then one would have to pay $50,000 up front to get their legal representation started.

If.......on the other hand........the facts of the shooting situation were in the least bit murky........... then the staring fee would rise to $200,000 to get the defense representation started and the cost would substantially increase depending on just how "murky" the actual facts of the incident proved out to be.

A family member who was once a senior supervising attorney for the state of New York told me that the best professional advice that he could share with me was to try and avoid as much as was possible becoming involved in the court system in the first place as even a not guilty jury decision would in all likelihood cause a tremendous amount of financial pain to me and my immediate family.

The following 2 articles are worth reading if for no other reason that they provide a point of view that has some merit to them:


www.activeresponsetraining.net

Tactical Training Scenario- Random Gunfire

For the last couple years, there has been an epidemic of mass shootings targeting people in bars, malls, and outdoor parties. These have generally been gang members targeting other gang members. It's spring. We
www.activeresponsetraining.net www.activeresponsetraining.net
Click to expand...
Which state you are in is a huge factor.
 
safetyfirst2125 said:
If anyone can summarize I’d appreciate it.
Click to expand...
USCCA promises a funded defense to its members for self defense incidents.

It appears that what USCCA means "In cases USCCA considers self defense", not "cases in which the defendant claims self defense" ... and there is a difference between the two.

Short enough summary?
 
NHKevin said:
Which state you are in is a huge factor.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct that the state where the shooting incident occurred is the overriding factor in the determination of just how badly the deck is stacked against a person trying to defend a case of a self-defense shooting. Both the attorney referenced and myself lived in the Republic at the time of the original conversation and I and my family still do reside there.

The upcoming proposed legislation will essentially be an all-out attack on all of our legal rights to defend our families and our loved ones from the actions of the criminal element and I would be completely surprised if the cost of defending a self-defense case has gotten any cheaper than it was reported to be back in 2005.

Hopefully none of us will experience at first hand just how expensive that cost has become in today's anti-2-A environment.
 
67ray said:
Too bad more people didn't have the same attitude towards the NRA
Click to expand...

If I wanted to pay a corrupt lobby more money, I'd just donate more money in taxes or decline a few write-offs. It's not a "may not work". They don't do any work anymore. NRA memberships are timeshares but you never get your share of time. NAGR. GOAL, COMM2A are what I think you meant.


Coda said:
I have read through this thread as I have the other threads regarding CCW Insurance/Pre Paid Attorney. The threads were quite informative and helpful in my decision to purchase CCW Insurance.

I don’t think we will ever come to a general consensus as to whether or not these plans are worthwhile or not. Part of that is everybody’s circumstances are likely to be different.

I am not sure if what I have for CCW Insurance is worth it or not. But the way I look at it is like this. When I look at what I (as with most other gun owners) spend on Guns, Ammo, Safes, Accessories, Optics, Reloading supplies, Licensing Fees, Range Memberships, on and on the CCW Safe cost is a very small drop in a very large bucket.

I hope I never need to use it, and who knows if they are going to help me or not. But I figure if I need to shoot somebody the CCW coverage is more likely to help me than that extra case of ammo, or that red dot sight that I never really needed.
Click to expand...
If they function as advertised, of course they are worth it. But in light of my initial post, does it not give you pause to at the very least read the fine print?
 
I’m usually more concerned with surviving the encounter… after that your in a world of shit…

I’ve questioned if it would be easier if you didn’t survive. But then there’s a middle ground, where your permanently physical and mentally f***ed and still have to go through the courts and have to pay the hospital bills..

Even if you’re not playing stupid games, you still win stupid prizes sometimes.

I’m curious if by carrying the insurance that’s an admission of something.. like you thought it might happen?

There’s no scenario where this goes well for anybody. (except the bloodsucking lawyers ) Im not gonna stand there and let somebody kill anybody regardless of the consequences.
 
MGnoob said:
I’m curious if by carrying the insurance that’s an admission of something.. like you thought it might happen?
Click to expand...
You might claim otherwise with USCCA on account of the training and magazine, rather like claiming that, back in its heyday, one subscribed to Playboy for the articles.

The Giles case is interesting in principle, but I think eyebrows would be raised in quite a lot of insurance situations if the incident of "loss" occurs within 12 days of purchasing the policy.

BTW, I don't see how one can look at the undisputed details of that case and hold out much more than a snowball's chance in hell that she didn't do exactly what the USCCA thought. Doesn't make it right for them to play that game in the first place, IMHO, but we are NOT talking about an innocent woman railroaded by the system. Holding her up as some kind of martyr for the cause would be George Floyd-like play.
 
1. It looks bad for USCCA.

2. the guy in the ball cap in the "thumbnail" in the first video - that guy is a complete tool. Not sure what it has to do with the case, but that guy is SOOOO full of himself. I tried watching a video or two of him. It's 3 seconds of a clip and 8 minutes of him telling you why he thinks this or that. All while scowling or frowning with his ball cap pulled EXTRA low.

3. The retort BY USCCA was worse than them not defending the guy. LOL
 
Ron Jablonski said:
I've been seeing a few videos on YouTube lately about uscca. An insurance company that finds ways not to pay up when the time comes does not surprise me.
Click to expand...
I've always believed that insurance is a ponzi scheme and it's pretty much legalized extortion.
 
ThePreBanMan said:
This thread does raise an interesting question though... For those who do not choose to buy/carry such insurance, what is the best way to handle ourselves if we're involved in a self-defense shooting? Aside from the #1 rule - STFU. I would venture to guess, 99% of us don't have a lawyer on retainer. Probably have no idea of the lawyers that specialize in this field either. It would be pretty cool if we could compile a list of lawyers and law firms that have expertise here. We could then put the numbers in our phones, hang them on the fridge for a spouse to call on our behalf, etc.

IDK that telling my girlfriend to get on NES and track down @Rob Boudrie is a great legal defense strategy... Maybe an org like Comm2A could compile a list?
Click to expand...
You're doing yourself a disservice if you don't at least have 2 firearms attorneys in your phone.

You don't have to have them on retainer (though you might want to), but being able to call someone immediately when you need them and work something out is a great comfort.

I had the police come after me for purchasing several used guns from a FFL. I went through the EDA10 portal and all my background checks- the prior owner had been arrested on a non-violent charge that was tossed for constitutionality.

It took a out 5k to get my guns back, a proper lawyer would have likely told them to pound sand. The firearms were not used nor were they present at the time of the crime, and were legally transferred to the ffl before the owners ltc was suspended.
 
I don't have a dog in this fight but here's the problem I see facing a prepaid-legal/insurance group like USCCA. When an accused is charged with wounded or killing someone else, they can always claim self defense. They may be telling the truth. They may be outright lying. They may be in denial to the point where, despite physical evidence, they believe story they invented to justify their actions. As the old saw goes, everyone in prison is innocent. Just ask them.

When the accused files a claim for representation with USCCA, that organization faces two choices. It can either accept the claim at face value and defend everyone, it which case they will end up spending resources on bogus and fraudulent claims. While they could ask for reimbursement, as criminal defense attorneys know it can be impossible to get paid by a convicted client. So honest policy holders would end up paying the cost.

The alternative is to do some sort of triage, but how? Once self-defense has been asserted, the prosecution must disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt, but that happens at trial. The USCCA has to make a call that there's an argument for reasonable doubt based on much less information, and so it's going to be wrong more often. A "payback" clause allows them to give the claimant more benefit of doubt initially, and also acts as a deterrent for filing bogus claims.

Plea bargaining complicates the "payback" decision even further. Why did the prosecution offer a plea bargain? Why did the defense accept it? There are lots of motives for each, but either way it means that there is no longer an adversarial proceeding designed to test the claim of self-defense, so the decision has to be made somehow. And in retrospect, sometimes that decision is going to be wrong.

I've been trying to think how the USCCA could be more transparent about its decision making process without violating attorney-client privilege or confidentiality of discovery materials. About the only thing I came up with is a scorecard, where they report the number of claims, the number of refusals, and the number of requests for payback. In summary, I think insurance companies have earned the mistrust of policy owners, but, alas, insurance fraud is common enough so that the opposite is also true.
 
Parker Schreiber said:
When an accused is charged with wounded or killing someone else, they can always claim self defense.
Click to expand...
At some point doesn't the court decide whether to allow a SD-based defense? If so, I think the accused should be given the benefit of the doubt and the coverage they contracted for up to that point. If the court allows the SD defense, then the insurance company is on the hook. If the court disallows it, then for the time being they need only cover appealing that ruling.
 
ThePreBanMan said:
That's not EXACTLY what he said. He said that "the insurance company has never recouped payments made on behalf of a USCCA member". That is lawyer double-speak. It means - yes we have tried. No, we were not successful. He chose his words very carefully - and that's not lost on me.
Click to expand...

There are two parts to the USCCA product, criminal legal representation plan (not an insurance product) and civil liability (an insurance product). If the CEO says the insurance company has never recouped payment made on behalf of a member that's because a civil award was made by either a jury who found the defendant civilly but not criminally liable for the perps injury/death or the insurance company settled the civil lawsuit. The threshold for a civil suit is well below that of criminal charges and one doesn't need to be found criminally guilty to be found civilly liable for injuries/death. Just look at the OJ Simpson case - found not guilty in criminal court & lost everything in civil court.
 
Buck F said:
There are two parts to the USCCA product, criminal legal representation plan (not an insurance product) and civil liability (an insurance product). If the CEO says the insurance company has never recouped payment made on behalf of a member that's because a civil award was made by either a jury who found the defendant civilly but not criminally liable for the perps injury/death or the insurance company settled the civil lawsuit. The threshold for a civil suit is well below that of criminal charges and one doesn't need to be found criminally guilty to be found civilly liable for injuries/death. Just look at the OJ Simpson case - found not guilty in criminal court & lost everything in civil court.
Click to expand...

While I can appreciate what you're saying and understand that the bar for civil is lower than criminal, the phrase he chose to use "never recouped" has specific meaning. That does not mean they never tried to recoup the fees. Nor does it mean that they were never awarded such fees at trial. It means they never collected... That is very different than trying to collect or even being awarded at trial. I would imagine it's difficult to collect 100K in legal fees from someone sitting in jail for the rest of their life... This makes sense when you think about it. Understand what he is telling you. But also understand what he is NOT telling you.

Rest assured his statement was reviewed by a dozen lawyers before he read from that teleprompter. Those statements were all carefully crafted by a team of lawyers to be as vague as possible while sounding authoritative and conclusive on the subject while also not exposing themselves to liability for false statements about their product.
 
meh said:
At some point doesn't the court decide whether to allow a SD-based defense?
Click to expand...

The court gets to decide that the defense has presented “sufficient evidence” of an imminent threat, but that’s typically a fairly low standard. That evidence can be circumstantial (as would be the case in a confrontation) or merely the testimony of the accused.

In one case I know of, a claim of self-defense was denied because the victim was unconscious.
 

Similar threads

F*ck the USCCA with a rusty stick
2 3 4
Replies
114
Views
3K
PappyM3
PappyM3
Is there a reason.......
2 3
Replies
66
Views
2K
CMEBoston
CMEBoston
Groton is next in line
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
Asaltweapon
Asaltweapon
Facebook is insane.
2
Replies
43
Views
956
HARRYM
H
Nevada Supreme Court Upholds Ban on So-Called ‘Ghost Guns’
Replies
4
Views
193
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
Back
Top Bottom