Professor Wheezy Posted July 5, 2012 at 12:36 AM Posted July 5, 2012 at 12:36 AM I thought this might go under the Why I Conceal Carry but as I wrote it I felt it might be best as its own topic. This seems like a pretty reasonable forum and for those that carry or will carry you have many reasons, from "cause I can" "cause I want to" and "for protection". But have thought and considered the other things that you actually should be carrying too? By this I mean an umbrella liability policy and legal defense insurance. Yeah, together they will probably cost around $400 or more a year PER CARRIER. So if you and your wife are packing, well it could be upwards of $800 or more a year. I have a gun in the home and am prepared to use it under justifiable use of force laws in IL. Even in the home one COULD face unpleasant legal issues and potential liability issues if you fire an errant round that hits or damages someone else's property. However, if you carry outside the home the potential (I believe) to possibly injure an innocent is even greater and it is not hard to imagine (especially in Chicago) a truly justifiable shooting getting a lot of negative attention resulting in the need for criminal defense. Add to that the NEED for yearly professional training and individual practice which I feel while optional, is truly mandatory for a repsonsible shooter and you are looking at about $1500 or more a year for a couple to be armed. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know plenty people carry and choose to go naked with insurance but are they practicing RESPONSIBLE carry? And while I completely realize driving is a privilege and being armed is a right I believe in BOTH cases one has a responsibility to be insured, if you are taking those guns outside the home. Again I feel inside the home probably not but outside you are entering a whole different scenario. Money shouldn't preclude people from execising a right, but at the same time there is a degree of responsibility that each gun operator must exhibit and this Being Responsible is not cheap - so what do the poor do? Be irresponsibly armed? What do you think? Fire away.
jfd287 Posted July 5, 2012 at 01:29 AM Posted July 5, 2012 at 01:29 AM After me and my wife took the NRA Personal protection inthe home class, she was scared of the civil liability of have to use a firearm in a justifiable way. It is scary.
Bud Posted July 5, 2012 at 02:21 AM Posted July 5, 2012 at 02:21 AM I have a $1M rider on my home owners and it costs way less than $200 per year. I belong to a club where i can shoot 7 days a week for $60 per year plus 10 hours of service to the club. That's not much expense to carry 24/7
Ranger Posted July 5, 2012 at 02:27 AM Posted July 5, 2012 at 02:27 AM If you have many assets, you need a large umbrella policy anyway.
Gray Peterson Posted July 5, 2012 at 07:10 AM Posted July 5, 2012 at 07:10 AM A better investment would be the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Fund. $85+$50 additional in household, you get 5 to 10K for deposit for a lawyer after a self defense incident.
TyGuy Posted July 5, 2012 at 12:04 PM Posted July 5, 2012 at 12:04 PM Glad to see I'm not the only one up that late. I was on Dead Island. The ACLDF is a good idea.
output Posted July 5, 2012 at 12:10 PM Posted July 5, 2012 at 12:10 PM I have a $1M rider on my home owners and it costs way less than $200 per year. I belong to a club where i can shoot 7 days a week for $60 per year plus 10 hours of service to the club. That's not much expense to carry 24/7 Bud, can you tell us a little more about the rider? What did you ask for exactly? A better investment would be the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Fund. $85+$50 additional in household, you get 5 to 10K for deposit for a lawyer after a self defense incident. Gray, I have not researched the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Fund for a while now. Is that all that's included, the initial deposit for defense? 5-10k? As we get closer to CC here in IL this is often something I think about. I really am not too sure where to start though and this thread just reminded me that I need to get this taken care of. I have thought about calling my insurance broker but I don't want him to think I have lost my marbles. Since there is no CC in IL. Thanks for the help and information.
Bud Posted July 5, 2012 at 01:09 PM Posted July 5, 2012 at 01:09 PM Talk to your broker about personal umbrella liability insurance which normally covers things like swimming pools, hot tubs, tampolince;guests on your property for sporting events,; etc Also the NRA offers protection to it's memebers. here's the link: NRA Endorsed Insurance
Jeff Johnson Posted July 5, 2012 at 02:42 PM Posted July 5, 2012 at 02:42 PM An umbrella policy is a good idea if you own property or have any assets at all.The self defense policy strikes me as a good thing for somebody selling policies and an unnecessary expense for the rest of us.Personally, I'll put the money toward guns or reloading supplies instead.
Chiburbian Posted July 5, 2012 at 04:42 PM Posted July 5, 2012 at 04:42 PM The ACLDN is a good idea in that it is specifically NOT insurance. It provides you with an immediate $5,000 (I think it is up to $10,000 now) to pay your lawyer to get him working on your case. Not everyone has that kind of cash laying around and most insurance plans only kick in once you are found innocent. It "may" not even kick in if you are eventually not charged, and by then you may have already shelled out thousands of dollars to bond out and get your legal defense rolling. Part of the benefit is an "emergency response team" that will fly to your location immediately to visit the crime scene and start interviewing witnesses. Massad Ayoob is affiliated. That is good enough for me. They also provide you with educational DVDs and ship a new one out every year as continuing education. So far I am very pleased. It is only one part of my self defense aftermath plan, but an integral one.
vess1 Posted July 5, 2012 at 06:29 PM Posted July 5, 2012 at 06:29 PM I saw a pamphelet for the citizens defense fund in the back of my Utah class binder. It could be a good idea. I dont know. It seems like insuranse is out of control. And people have said in the past that theyre worried the poor will be left behind if only the permit fees are too high. The guns themselves are expensive. Ive thought about this too. If you really excercise restraint and are completely justified when the time comes, it is very likely you will just go home and nothing will come of it. The odds are slim that you would ever need to use it. And if you do, its not a guarantee that you will have to go to court. That insurance can guaranteed cost you thousands over your life. Sometimes you take your chances. My biggest concern is somebody out of their mind coming into a business with guns blazing. If you defend yourself or others from a gunmen and avoid bystanders, you will not go to court in that situation. What I learned at the class was that you want to avoid having to use deadly force against unarmed attackers at all costs. That looks real bad in court even if it is justified. Sent from my Motorola Electrify using Tapatalk 2
mauserme Posted July 5, 2012 at 08:58 PM Posted July 5, 2012 at 08:58 PM ...But have thought and considered the other things that you actually should be carrying too? By this I mean an umbrella liability policy and legal defense insurance. Yeah, together they will probably cost around $400 or more a year PER CARRIER. So if you and your wife are packing, well it could be upwards of $800 or more a year. Keep in mind that the self defense policy offered through the NRA is an Excess and Surplus Lines policy, meaning in part that the coverage provided is excess over other collectible insurance. Assuming you have an umbrella policy that will respond to a self defense shooting (some do, some do not), then the $100,000 or $250,000 excess self defense coverage will only respond after that $1,000,000 is exhausted. If there is no other primary coverage then the self defense policy becomes primary. Compared to purchasing both a personal umbrella and the self defense policy, it would probaly be more cost effective to just increase your umbrella policy to $2,000,000 which normally would increase your cost about 50% of the first $1,000,000. This would give you more coverage in total, would likely be less expensive than the cost of the self defense policy, and will cover all relatives in your household. I believe the self defense policy requires covered persons to be individually scheduled (at additional cost per person??) or to purchase individual policies, and each covered person must be an NRA member with that associated expense as well. Most umbrella policies exclude coverage for intentional acts but some use language similar to the following which is intended to carve out an exeption to the exclusion for self defense situations: Exclusions We do not provide coverage: 1. For Bodily Injury or Property Damage either expected or intended from the standpoint of any Insured. This exclusion does not apply to BodilyInjury if: a. such Insured acted with reasonable force to protect persons or property; and b. such actions were not criminal, malicious or committed in violation of a penal law or ordinance by any Insured or with any Insured's prior knowledge and consent. Look for wording under the exclusion section of the policy that has a similar carve out for acts of self defense. One coverage the self defense policy gives that umbrellas normally do not is the $50,000 criminal defense cost reimbursement. One condition contained in the Self Defense Coverage - Retired Law Enforcement endorsement not typical to an umbrella is that the firearm must be legally possessed under federal/state law and local ordinance in the location where the shooting takes place. This is fine if you're in your home and know the local laws. If you're travelling, however, it might be easy to find yourself without coverage if you run afoul of even the most obscure city code. (I'm not able to find the form for non-LEO, but I think its safe to assume it has a similar if not identical provision).
Blackhawk067 Posted July 5, 2012 at 09:23 PM Posted July 5, 2012 at 09:23 PM First of all.....Would probably help first if we were allowed to carry in this state. Second....I agree that people should be properly trained and practice regularly. Third, as far as comparing it to having car insurance....Nonsense. People drive ALL THE TIME and anyone behind the wheel can make a mistake at 70 mph and everyone behind the wheel is a potential liability. Most people who carry a weapon will never have to use it Fourth.....The responsibility for "gun operators" is simply to be responsible. Not having insurance is hardly being irresponsible. The responsibility is knowing the laws and knowing when and when not to use your weapon. The responsibility is also being properly trained. That being said...I, along with people I go shooting with...we practice more than any cop I know. Finally...I think that it's unnecessary. How often do you hear of carriers defending themselves and hitting innocent bystanders? Answer: Rarely...if ever. Your assertion that anyone carrying without insurance is irresponsible is absurd.
Bud Posted July 5, 2012 at 09:54 PM Posted July 5, 2012 at 09:54 PM having insurance is just like having a gun or needing a fireman You never it until you need it really, really bad
Blackhawk067 Posted July 5, 2012 at 11:07 PM Posted July 5, 2012 at 11:07 PM having insurance is just like having a gun or needing a fireman You never it until you need it really, really bad Yeah, insurance is a nice safety net, but I would hardly classify every gun owner without it as "irresponsible".
Bud Posted July 6, 2012 at 12:20 AM Posted July 6, 2012 at 12:20 AM ] Yeah, insurance is a nice safety net, but I would hardly classify every gun owner without it as "irresponsible". I never said or inferred that they were
Blackhawk067 Posted July 6, 2012 at 12:24 AM Posted July 6, 2012 at 12:24 AM ] Yeah, insurance is a nice safety net, but I would hardly classify every gun owner without it as "irresponsible". I never said or inferred that they were I know Bud...the OP did. My bad...I didn't intend to adhere his opinion to yours.
Professor Wheezy Posted July 6, 2012 at 01:46 AM Author Posted July 6, 2012 at 01:46 AM First, thanks for the ACLDN heads-up. Also, in lookng at the NRA insurance I was looking at it more from the standpooint of it helping to pay legal expenses not so much for the added protection of liability coverage. It seems perhaps I need to explain what I meant by "irresponsible". Someone already said there's a big difference between driving (an inherently dangerous proposition to begin with) and carrying a gun. I would agree up to a point BUT if you have to use your weapon then having the gun also becomes a very dangerous proposition. My concern is not for the "bad guy" in a justifiable shoot. My concern is for the possible innocent bystander that one could wound. I totally believe in being responsible and training a lot so one is proficient with their weapon BUT one is not just legally repsonsible for every round they fire but also Morally responsible for it and should one of those rounds either through a miss or overpenetration hit an innocent bystander I feel it is the shooter's responsility to make sure they have the financial wherewithall to assist the person wounded in making them whole. That is why I feel it is irresponsible to carry a gun without having insurance to cover a potential innocent. The "sucks to be them" attitude is what I mean by irresponsible. As for the insurance for your legal defense that is up to the individual. I think it is smart but not "required".
stm Posted July 6, 2012 at 01:18 PM Posted July 6, 2012 at 01:18 PM I would never question a person's choice to carry personal liability insurance for this type of risk. However, I believe it is very dangerous to suggest that it could be "required." The City of Chicago and some state legislators have tossed around the idea of "requiring" citizens to have a $1,000,000 insurance policy just to possess a firearm in the home. I'm sure they would have no problem with multiplying that by a factor of ten for the "privilege" of carrying outside your home.
Smallbore Posted July 7, 2012 at 01:51 AM Posted July 7, 2012 at 01:51 AM If I am every forced to defend myself in a violent confrontation resulting in an innocent bystander being hurt, I believe it is the violent attacker who is at fault for all resulting injuries.
Bud Posted July 7, 2012 at 02:24 AM Posted July 7, 2012 at 02:24 AM If I am every forced to defend myself in a violent confrontation resulting in an innocent bystander being hurt, I believe it is the violent attacker who is at fault for all resulting injuries. not in America If the innocent bystander lives (or if they don't and they have family members) they will find some ambulance chasing attorney who will sue you because you either elevated the situation into a gunfight or you needlessly endangered innocent lives by drawing your weapon. It was your actions that caused the plantiff's injuries. Seriously, ask any of the lawyers here if that's possible There are lawyers who become millionaires with that kind of case
vezpa Posted July 7, 2012 at 11:06 AM Posted July 7, 2012 at 11:06 AM Everyone is worried about getting sued, insurance, bills etc... when the scum of the earth are out there killing and injuring people everyday with no regard for anyone. sad.
Xwing Posted July 11, 2012 at 08:05 PM Posted July 11, 2012 at 08:05 PM Everyone is worried about getting sued, insurance, bills etc... when the scum of the earth are out there killing and injuring people everyday with no regard for anyone. sad. Yes, it is an indictment on our American society. We are litigious beyond compare. But with attorneys running the political process, I doubt we will see true tort reform ever.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.