Law of Self Defense
If Only USCCA Had Done It Right: Part 1
The United States Concealed Carry Association (USCCA) along with its partner Delta Defense LLC purport to pay their members legal expenses if the member is involved in a use-of force event. Indeed, their sophisticated internet advertising campaigns frequently feature CEO Tim Schmidt assuring the public that "We've got your back!"
In recent years, however, USCCA has refused to meet that apparent obligation to its members. When asked about this the organization has either provided no particularly substantive reasons--e.g., "we just feel we're not obligated to do so"--or has made up an outrageously not credible explanation months after the fact--e.g., "actually that member preferred we not help them."
It is for these reasons that I'm personally unable to recommend USCCA in good faith to anybody seeking legal services coverage in a use-of-force context.
That said, there DO EXIST scenarios in which it would arguably be appropriate for ANY use-of-force legal services company to decline to provide coverage--and we'll explore one of those scenarios in the context of a recent New Mexico Supreme Court decision.
If THIS had been USCCA's explanation for its repeated failure to cover its members, they'd have had a point. Too bad for them, however, that this was NOT their explanation.
THERE IS ONLY ONE SELF-DEFENSE "INSURANCE" PROVIDER I TRUST!
There are lots of self-defense "insurance" companies out there. Some are hot garbage. Some have limited resources. Some are simply, in my view, untrustworthy. But there is ONE that I PERSONALLY TRUST to protect myself and my family.
LEARN which ONE I TRUST and WHY by clicking HERE, and ALSO receive a 10% discount code!
------> https://lawofselfdefense.com/trust
Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice. If you are in need of legal advice you must consult competent legal counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
The United States Concealed Carry Association (USCCA) along with its partner Delta Defense LLC purport to pay their members legal expenses if the member is involved in a use-of force event. Indeed, their sophisticated internet advertising campaigns frequently feature CEO Tim Schmidt assuring the public that "We've got your back!"
In recent years, however, USCCA has refused to meet that apparent obligation to its members. When asked about this the organization has either provided no particularly substantive reasons--e.g., "we just feel we're not obligated to do so"--or has made up an outrageously not credible explanation months after the fact--e.g., "actually that member preferred we not help them."
It is for these reasons that I'm personally unable to recommend USCCA in good faith to anybody seeking legal services coverage in a use-of-force context.
That said, there DO EXIST scenarios in which it would arguably be appropriate for ANY use-of-force legal services company to decline to provide coverage--and we'll explore one of those scenarios in the context of a recent New Mexico Supreme Court decision.
If THIS had been USCCA's explanation for its repeated failure to cover its members, they'd have had a point. Too bad for them, however, that this was NOT their explanation.
THERE IS ONLY ONE SELF-DEFENSE "INSURANCE" PROVIDER I TRUST!
There are lots of self-defense "insurance" companies out there. Some are hot garbage. Some have limited resources. Some are simply, in my view, untrustworthy. But there is ONE that I PERSONALLY TRUST to protect myself and my family.
LEARN which ONE I TRUST and WHY by clicking HERE, and ALSO receive a 10% discount code!
------> https://lawofselfdefense.com/trust
Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice. If you are in need of legal advice you must consult competent legal counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.