I just want to give you a little information on what the process is for how incidents like these are generally handled. I know USCCA/Delta Defense is not an insurance policy. However, it is, in part, a very insurance like product and I would expect courts interpreting the terms and conditions of the benefits in a similar manner to they way they interpret an insurance policy or a similar type of contract. For simplicity, I am going to use the common insurance terms because most people understand them.
The first thing that has to happen is that there be a covered occurrence. In our case, I shot someone as I was walking from the store to my car and I claim that I did so in self defense. We call the police and tell them I was being attacked and feared for my life and I shot the assailant. I then call USCCA. On its face, this seems to be a valid claim and USCCA starts wheels in motion by contacting an emergency response team attorney to speak with you and doing their back office stuff.
Police come and it turns out that the 17 year old assailant had a BB gun that was a replica of a Glock 19.
A CLEAR CUT CASE OF SELF DEFENSE!
Because I was lazy, I forgot to renew my CCL in January (play along that Constitutional Carry was repealed) and when I remembered, the earth had stopped spinning because of COVID. All of the sudden, I am getting handcuffed for possession of a concealed deadly weapon, and because Louisville wants to blame someone for the rampant death toll since the mayor told police to stand down during the “mostly peaceful” protests. And they throw in a murder charge.
So now, I say it was the legal use of a firearm and PoPo says it was not. I am still a USCCA member and they, as an insurance like entity, will have certain obligations. These are broadly stated as a duty to investigate, a duty to defend and a duty to indemnify. The primary of these duties is the duty to defend and there is a presumption that there is coverage and that defense must continue until there is conclusive evidence that the duty does not exist. Sometimes these questions are easy to answer, like you let your membership lapse or you shot your best friend and and fiancé when you found them in bed together. But more often than not, these can be very fact specific and requires significant investigation.
The way this is handled, at least under Kentucky law Is that USCCA would continue to provide you with a defense “under a reservation of rights.” This means they believe that this occurrence may not be covered but we are going to keep defending you until we are sure. They will continue to pay your attorney to do his job but will also hire a coverage attorney to put the facts in line with the coverage to determine if there should be coverage. If, at the end of the investigation, everything is fine.
If they find there is no coverage, there will usually be an ancillary lawsuit filed seeking a declaration by a court that there is or is not coverage for the occurrence. This is called a “declaration of rights” and it is legally framed as a “declaratory judgment.” If the court decides there is no coverage, then you defense will stop. Generally, there is no requirement to repay what has been paid unless the contract specifically provides for reimbursement.
Thank you for clearing that up .The way it sounded you had to prove yourself not guilty before you had coverage to me anyway
There is a very troubling narrative about “victims of police and armed vigilantes”. Self-defence is being turned into a crime in the eyes of potential jurors in future court cases.
Thank you Mike. Very useful.
Thank you.
Excellent answer and well explained.
I would ask, while you ‘forgot to renew your CCL’ you still have a valid self defense claim, and should continue to be covered for that, and hopefully acquitted, though the carrying of a concealed firearm might be a charge difficult to beat in that situation.
Is it a all or nothing situation?
In an interview with one of the lawyers for Kyle Rittenhouse, the lawyer made a statement I think really cuts to the heart of the matter. To parphrase: I think is disgusting that in America today a 17-year-old has to arm himself to protect property and the community because the official authorities refuse to to so.
Amen
That is sooo right!
Attorney John Pierce speaks after interviewing Kyle Rittenhouse…
“I want to say that this is 100 percent self defense. If this is not self defense for Kyle Rittenhouse, under these circumstances, then no one can protect themselves, no one can protect their family, and no one can protect their country. This is a watershed moment in American history. A very bright line has been crossed. The right to self defense is a God-given right. And we are not going to allow a prosecutor in Kenosha, WI, to take it away from Kyle Rittenhouse.”
Kyle also comments on the phone in Pierce’s video/tweet below…
By no means is it all or nothing. Each element of each crime charged must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
I had thought so for the court, but what about USCCA? If you have a valid self defense claim, but as your example used, you forgot to renew your CCL, you will most like find yourself with a conviction of illegally carrying a concealed firearm. If you prove you acted in self defense, but are convicted of the firearms charge, would the coverage still hold.
Just wondering since that scenario was asked regarding Rittenhouse. If he had been a member, If he acted in self defense as I believe, but he was carrying the rifle illegally, would USCCA coverage remain or be denied due to the illegal carrying of a rifle.
Denied, due to illegal weapon. It was not a weapon he was not entitled to have in Wisconsin legally.
That’s not accurate. It is my understanding that in Wisconsin, a person 16 years old and above, but less than 18 years old, can open carry a rifle with a muzzle length of 16" or more.
His lawyer and the man, “Walt”, in a radio interview, that brought him to that area, both stated he was/is legally “allowed” to carry a rifle. Those statements and numerous links to it were provided in the numerous threads on this topic well before his repeated comments that Rittenhouse was not legally “allowed” to carry.
[Edit] They both stated Rittenhouse did not bring the rifle to Wisconsin, he was given it after he was already in Wisconsin. Also, he was already in Kenosha working that day, and after work, went to a school to clean graffiti, the business owner then asked that group, Rittenhouse included, to help guard his mechanic’s shop. All three business locations the man owned had previously been subjected attacked the night before. He was trying to save what was left. Rittenhouse is on video stating he was there specifically to offer medical aid, and to guard the shop.
FaceBoook bans links to fundraisers for Kyle Rittenhouse but allows legal defense funds for others including convicted murderers
Not too hard to read between the lines on that one…
I know this is a volatile conversation. The thing is he was illegally carrying that gun into Wisconsin. I’ve been reading the laws there. He was in fact illegally carrying the gun into Wisconsin. The problem I have is there going to charge him as an adult for murder but the law that he broke is as a minor. So how can they charge him as an adult for murder if in fact the law he broke was as a minor?
Read the laws. it says because he was 17 he cannot carry that gun in Wisconsin. In the law they recognized 17 being a minor. If you charge him as an adult then you’re taking away the law he broke. Because in an adult perspective it was self-defense they did attack him first. So I think they have to choose. If you charge him as a adult then you must take away the law he broke as a minor. Which means you can’t charge him with murder because it was self-defense. Now if you charge him as a minor for breaking a law as a minor, then the murder charges completely change.
Are YOU A LAWYER?
No I am not. Just going off the laws I read from Wisconsin. Besides this is my opinion and I’m allowed to have an opinion.
YEA, you are allowed to have an opinion