Legal insurance.

[nicki]

The reality is if any of us gets involved in a criminal case, we are going to easily be spending 5K to 10K.

The NRA does have a optional defense plan, but they pay after the case is over and only if you are found not guity.

What we really need is a defense plan that will cover us period, even if we are wrong, for instance, we used excessive force and are convicted of manslaughter.

Of course we wouldn't cover things like murder, road rage, felony murders or other willful criminal acts with guns.

The chance of any of us being in such a situation is slim, but if you are that one person, it is like winning a reverse lottery ticket where instead of you getting a massive influx of cash, you get a massive drain of cash.

I think a plan that would cover bail up to say 100K, legal expenses up to 100K for instance would be target range for coverage.

If you were a member of such a plan, a anti gun DA would realize that you could defend yourself against a political attack.

Any thoughts guys. Perhaps a legal insurance might be a viable business option.

Nicki

[glockman19]

IMHO, it would be less expensive for us to:

1) have an organizaton that helps those who need it.

I thought that was part of the purpose for the Cal Guns Foundation.

2) put our monies toghther and change the law through election of sympathetic politicians and changes to the legal system.

We need better local and state cooperation so we can elect politicians and Sheriff's who will be realistic, after all the first two senatnces of the California Constitution are, "

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

Until we can enforce our most basic rights we wil lose. The tools of Self Defense, Defense of Property, and Obtaining Safety are knives, guns, mace, tazers, etc... however our legislators through the process have made it virtually impossible to self defens without breaking a law that conflicts with our "inalieable rights" as written in our own state constitution.

The argument that police will protect you has already been answered by the Supreme Court of The United States in Warren V. DC "LEO have No Obligation to Protect any individual...." and Heller now reaffirms the right to "Keep & Bear" I keep things I own in my home, I bear, wear, posess, carry, outside my home for "Personal Protection". Sounds Like a simple, basic, logical argument to me. Some thing I think even a 5th grader could understand.

[CitaDeL]

Plus one to Nicki

The legal insurance for those in 2A advocacy is a good one- There would however be disparate rates for those who are simply firearms owners and say, those who enjoy OLL's or open carry. The greater legal risk, the higher the premium.


and

Plus one to glockman19

I think the infrastructure for CalGuns legal defense (read 'expense') fund is a good thing to throw our resourses into. The advent of Heller has opened up the doors for legal challenges for AW's and no gun zone bans- we would do well to pre-fund these legal opportunities. Better to have the money in hand, than to make an 11th hour plea when things are already tight.

[nick]

IMHO, it would be less expensive for us to:

1) have an organizaton that helps those who need it.

I thought that was part of the purpose for the Cal Guns Foundation.

2) put our monies toghther and change the law through election of sympathetic politicians and changes to the legal system.

We need better local and state cooperation so we can elect politicians and Sheriff's who will be realistic, after all the first two senatnces of the California Constitution are, "

Until we can enforce our most basic rights we wil lose. The tools of Self Defense, Defense of Property, and Obtaining Safety are knives, guns, mace, tazers, etc... however our legislators through the process have made it virtually impossible to self defens without breaking a law that conflicts with our "inalieable rights" as written in our own state constitution.

The argument that police will protect you has already been answered by the Supreme Court of The United States in Warren V. DC "LEO have No Obligation to Protect any individual...." and Heller now reaffirms the right to "Keep & Bear" I keep things I own in my home, I bear, wear, posess, carry, outside my home for "Personal Protection". Sounds Like a simple, basic, logical argument to me. Some thing I think even a 5th grader could understand.

Legal insurance is still a good option regardless. Both federal, state, and local governments are quite likely to bring up politically-motivated charges and just abuse their power regardless of the laws out there. And the only way for those laws to mean anything is through enforcing them. Hence the legal insurance.

Calguns Foundation doesn't provide this option for the simple reason that they just don't have enough money for it. Also, they have certain criteria for accepting cases. Legal insurance, on the other hand, would provide the defense regardless of such criteria.

Now, organizing something like this would be interesting, as in not easy. Nicki, any ideas?

[Satex]

What we really need is a defense plan that will cover us period, even if we are wrong, for instance, we used excessive force and are convicted of manslaughter.

Get an umbrella insurance policy.

[nick]

Get an umbrella insurance policy.

Sounds expensive.

[JDoe]

Legal insurance sounds good to me.

What about a provision that the insured agree to cooperate with any subsequent civil actions to recover damages and etc. An overzealous D.A. might think twice about moving forward with charges if they knew the accused was covered by an insurance company that would spend $$ on a decent criminal defense and then go after everyone in civil actions.

[motorhead]

great idea. in todays economic climate i don't see it happenig though unless we pool funds and self insure. that could be wiped out with just a couple bad arrests.

[tyrist]

You can always get pre paid legal

[nick]

You can always get pre paid legal

Last I checked, they didn't cover gun-related cases. And I read pretty bad reviews on them. The gist of them was that it may be good for traffic tickets and writing legal letters, but not much more. Otherwise, I'd have it.

[berto]

Price would need to be low enough to draw significant policy holders but high enough to provide what the plan promises. Add administrative overhead and the task of finding competent counsel and any plan is improbable. A few cases requiring significant resources would likely crush the plan at start-up.

[TKM]

The pre paid legal that many people think of googles up as either a scam (class action lawsuits in several states IIRC) or MLM seeking to dupe recruits into bugging their friends and families like Amway.

I have a young friend (who hasn't met a get rich quick scheme that he doesn't like) who was chasing this idea around last month.

I would look at any PPL very carefully before signing on.

[nicki]

Legal insurance, what we really need.

Here is a example of a scenerio.

You have a CCW permit, against better judgement you go to San Fran for the weekend.

You are out and about on the street and take a short cut. You are approached and threatened by a group of men who encircle you.

You draw out your gun, stand your ground(castle doctrine) and actually shoot one of the men. The man dies. Turns out the man is 16 years old, he is a minority, you are white.

DA charges you with murder one, offers no deals, decides he wants to make a example of you. Bail is set at 1 million dollars.

Now, let me ask you, do you want a insurance that pays you after the fact and only if you win. Do you think you can get a competent defense attorney under these circumstances.

Again, most of us won't be in this situation, but if you are the person in this situation, you are in deep trouble.

Right now, most of us if we were in the above situation, would probably be forced to accept a plea bargain.

At this point, the Calguns foundation needs to be on offense with legal cases.
Perhaps in the near future, the Calguns foundation can create a blueprint for a legal insurance that would be comprehensive.

Umbrella coverage policies gernerally cover you if you face a civil suit, which is another seperate, but important issue to deal with.

Ideally, I would like to see a situation to where if I or anyone else got involved in a shooting, that all I would have to do is make one phone call, and I would know that I had a competent legal team.

What I would like DA's to know is that I have competent legal defense and that I'm the wrong person to persecute.

Nicki

[retired]

What I would like DA's to know is that I have competent legal defense and that I'm the wrong person to persecute.

Did you mean persecute or prosecute. I surmise you meant both.

[bwiese]

Firstly, (speaking as a CGF board member), CGF's primary focus is on various key "interesting" cases that can lead upward, often with a high degree of 'gun purity' - no other 'color' in the case, for example. Unless some really bad law could result, it doesn't behoove any of us to pour resources into an OLL case if the guy's got non-bogus drug or DV charges associated.

And CGF simply can't address any and all run of the mill day-to-day gun charges - many such cases hinge less on gun matters and gun laws than rules of evidence/search, etc. We'd get lost even if we had a ton of extra resources.

BTW, no reinsurance company would ever underwrite a specialty insurer for such a line, either (even AIG! ). There's the old 'selection' problem: the fraction people feeling the need for such insurance might well use it in short term before enough premiums were paid to compensate for outlays. (Kinda like a 2yr lockout period for health insurance for certain preexisting conditions.... in this case, the court trial serves as that delay.) And no insurance co is ever gonna pay out for something that could turn out as "guilty" in a criminal case.

However, attorneys knowing you have insurance such as NRA's may be more charitably disposed to pursuing your case knowing there will be payout at the end if it's a "good case" and they discharge their services competently.

Having an umbrella policy is also helpful esp for homeowners. That at least handles the civil side of things.