Question about USCCA

If this happens all across the US, I imagine a lot of self-defense shootings will be taking place, because they just legit legalized the purge. I do not think the insurance company can handle this. Something needs to happen, this is some scary ****

Do you guys have a contingency in place for this?

1 Like

The USCCA is not an insurance company. Business as usual.


semantics aside, what’s going to happen if anarchy happens?

1 Like

Anarchy is the absence of government. Speaking for myself, I will be completely unconcerned about legal defense, and would be concentrating solely on self defense.
Others may have a different opinion though.


If it’s a non-violent crime, why would I need to draw my firearm? (and through the potential subsequent series of events need to use my membership benefits) :wink:


Non-violent would mean there is no imminent threat of bodily harm, nor death. Therefore it would not justify drawing your weapon, let alone firing it.
Protecting stuff is not a justifiable use.


I forgot the quotation marks, but the list of “non-violent” includes car jacking, vandalism, burglary, theft, car theft. It’s quite insane! If it was just simply the stoners, prostitutes, traffic tickets and the like, that would be one thing. They do not share the same definition of “non-violent” as I do.


From the article:

  • All narcotics offenses

- Theft from persons

- Retail theft

- Theft from auto

- Burglary

- Vandalism

  • All bench warrants

- Stolen auto

  • Economic crimes

  • Prostitution

I put the ones that make me scratch my head in bold. Most of these cannot be accomplished non-violently.


I can easily make a case that all of those events can be committed non violently. The underlying issue here is not to panic or over react that would cause you to believe it is a reason to pull your weapon unless your life or the life of your loved one is in jeapordy of losing your life.


I don’t live there, so I don’t have to worry yet, but I’m exceedingly perplexed as to the logic here. These have, until now, almost always been considered violent crimes.

1 Like

What the what!!!??? :dizzy_face:

You’re right brother, that is insane if they’re including those…

1 Like

Didn’t say car jacking. Said theft of auto. I can steal your car without being violent. I can steal from a person without being violent and all the other issues above. Just be calm and don’t do something you will regret for the rest of your life.


Fair point and I agree…so again to my original post…I didn’t see anything originally listed that would compel me to need to defend myself.

However, I would need to defend myself in a carjacking, I would need to defend myself in a theft from persons if they’re attempting to take it real time vs when I’m not around, so IF those categories are being included, I would argue that that’s “crazy.”

1 Like

It says “theft from auto”. I assume they mean breaking into a car,taking but what it implies in this high tension climate is carjacking. Simple things like wording, really matter right now, especially when they’re selling out of bullets in Philly.

In simple terms I think Kage is asking if the USCCA has lots of cash to pay out a lot of claims.

I have never looked at the financials for USCCA. It isn’t publicly traded so I’m not sure how you would find out other than asking them.

But, to follow the argument of the replier’s, if the SHTF no one will be putting claims in as there will be no arrests being made.

1 Like

No, carjacking is taking a car while someone driving it (inherently violent), whereas theft from auto can mean some kid breaking into your car for the stereo. Theft from auto, not theft of auto. Same for ‘stolen car’–as in your car is in your driveway and someone comes at 2 am to steal it. Non violent.
To Fizbin’s point–most insurance companies carry stop loss insurance to cover the upper limit of risk. IDK if USCCA has that (I’ll bet they have a similar type set up). They would have to if they wanted a viable business model. @Dawn–any insights?

1 Like

@Aaron25, @Fizbin, @Kage - the USCCA is not about to go bankrupt and for the sake of clarity and to reduce undo panic, I’m going to change the title of this thread.

The purpose of the USCCA Membership is to educate, train and legal protection for our members when they’ve been in a self-defense incident.

It’s business as close to usual as possible save for some social distancing of staff (aka working remotely like me).


This is all stuff defense. Don’t get me wrong I don’t want my stuff taken. However I’m also not willing to take a life over any of these crimes.

The emotions are completely understandable, however I feel as a responsible gun owner I am held to a higher standard and need to remain level headed. Just as it’s my responsibility to know what’s beyond a target it’s my responsibility to think long term consequences.


And the “non-violent” crimes described in the article are non-violent, although some have a chance of becoming violent, and at that point they will be arrested from what I can tell in the article.

  • All narcotics offenses - non-violent (could turn violent depending on people involved)
  • Theft from persons - could be violent
  • Retail theft - non-violent
  • Theft from auto - non-violent
  • Burglary - is from an unoccupied area so is non-violent
  • Vandalism - non-violent
  • All bench warrants - non-violent
  • Stolen auto - non-violent
  • Economic crimes- non-violent
  • Prostitution- non-violent

100% agree, @Sheepdog. It’s self-defense, not stuff defense.


Sounds pretty accurate to me, and yes on the topic change.