USCCA vs defense of property?

I have friends in one of my discord group shouting out they can’t stand the USCCA, because the USCCA isn’t pro 2A for the reason that USCCA denounces defense or property or “stuff defense”.

I’ve tried educating him by saying USCCA is a conceal carry and SELF defense company. If somebody is outside tinkering with your vehicle, USCCA advocates not to confront said person, it is better to get law enforcement, and get a police report, to report to your homeowners, rental, and vehicle insurance.

As confronting and defending property increases the chances you’re harmed.

Most of the time when USCCA talks about it, or mentions it, they talk about it in a legal sense, as I’ve never heard really of any professional views the USCCA as a company addresses.

I’m sure if you talk to any attorney, they will tell you it is better to be a good witness and file a police report when your property is being taken, then it is to engage into a gun fight with these people.

The article that started this,

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/home-defense-with-an-ar-15-and-without-clothes/

8 Likes

One wonders how many entities those friends would consider to be “pro 2A” if that’s a disqualifier.

But more to the point, let’s be clear, this video is about lethal force being employed to protect property. I’m not so sure that “denounces defense of property” is the most accurate representation.

So did he fire a warning shot over potential property theft, or did he have an ND and risk potentially accidentally killing somebody over property theft?

Regardless of the answer, those are both (bad) things that wouldn’t have had the opportunity to happen had he not decided to respond to attempted property theft with a firearm

12 Likes

Yeah I agree it is not an accurate representation, of what the USCCA is, and he said he was gonna contact US lawshield and see what they say, but I should ask him why don’t he contact the USCCA and ask for an opinion from the representatives.

I have nothing bad to say about USCCA, been a member since 2019.

But talk to any attorney about how to confront a potential crook stealing stuff out of your car, your best and most likely response would be to be a good witness, record, and file a police report with what they took and the amount of damages they caused to your property, plus the amount of money worth they took.

Any other answer is really a bad response. You can confront if you want to, but to protect property is putting you at risk.

Would also add, if you confronted somebody, and they employed deadly force against you and you had to defend yourself USCCA will still cover you as long as you were at a point in defense of self

7 Likes

Took a long time, but I am so happy not to care what others think any more, nor feel inclined to sway their feeble minds.
Carry on :blush:

8 Likes

Correct. To confront is putting your life, your health, and in fact your Liberty at risk. It is putting your friends, family, and loved ones (to the extent they care about you and what happens to you, the person) at risk. Over a piece of metal and glass that’s sitting outside. Really, really bad ish can happen when you choose to leave a position of relative safety to confront a group, or even an individual.

I agree that it is a “bad response” to recommend another person, perhaps a total stranger, put themselves at the above stated risks over property.

Property can be replaced, pretty easily. Your car can be replaced. Your car’s window can be replaced. Your life, your health, your well being, not so easy. And if it’s a matter of money, well…go off and ND into somebody’s head over trying to steal your car and let’s see what that costs you.

8 Likes

@nathan57 Absolultely :+1:

3 Likes

Best guess is they should contact every group they wish, should learn the laws of their area & proceed as they want to. I’ll just read about their choices later. I’m sure that will be a learning experience for them.

6 Likes

Not always, and at what cost to you? Typically one would get bluebook value for a vehicle less deductible. Then you would need to be able to afford to buy another vehicle. I had a vehicle stolen when I was young. It was a financial hardship. I was fortunate, due to my thrift, I was able to replace it.

However in the 8 weeks it took to get the settlement, $1,600 after reayment of loan balance and deductible, I had to rent a vehicle. The insurance company did cover that, but my credit card limit was so low that I had to send checks to the CC company every two weeks so that I could continue renting a vehicle. If I did not have a cash reserve, I would not have been able to get to work for over 8 weeks, and then likely have lost my job. I then still had to go out and buy a new car. I liked the one that got stolen and burned. I lost about $8,000 - the amount I paid in car payments (and about half a year’s gross pay at the time). The insurance does not cover that. Back then, that was a lot of money to me. It is still a good number, but would be far less painful to lose today.

2 Likes

Sometimes financial hardships happen.

Sometimes a financial hardship over a stolen car is better than a financial hardship over putting your spinal fluid back into your ear.

Would you have had the cash reserves for that, and maybe also the cash reserves for bail yourself out of jail and pay an attorney up front?

And in this situation, we’re looking at basically a mansion of a home with a Lamborghini next to another very expensive vehicle. The guy can afford to get to work. Even if it was going to be a financial hardship, a few weeks of juggling money to get a car replaced =/= lethal force

2 Likes

For me, using lethal force and possibly killing someone is not worth it if they are taking my TV. If they start walking toward me, or have a weapon pointed at me, that’s a different story. I could not live with myself if I took a life so they couldn’t grab my crap.

8 Likes

I never suggested a violent encounter. The kids (teenagers) - according to the officer, based on where the car was found and that it was burned - that stole my car probably would not have done so if someone was around. Just mere presence is often enough to thwart a crime of convenience. I am not an advocate for violent engagements of any sort. I am a pacificist at heart, but having had property crime affect me personally, I understand how people would become angry when it is happening to them.

You seem to mock the financial hardship I suffered because I was able to survive without becoming homeless or completely broke. I know many people, even today, where loss of a vehicle would be a huge hardship in their lives, far worse than mine. It is not how much can you afford to lose, it is also what is the gain the criminal is expecting/receiving. Make it more painful for the criminal, not me.

That car was my first new car. I worked many years before I could afford to buy a new car. I had several or more used cars prior to that, and got tired of all the issues with repair costs, loss of work, etc. What is that worth? Far more than the financial cost which was large for me. What did it cost the one(s) that stole my car? Nothing. They were never caught.

3 Likes

When I was young, I worked at a convenience store. My coworkers complained about a certain group of teenagers that were always stealing stuff during their shifts. I never had any issues with them. They even told me they did not steal from me because they liked me. I did not believe that last part, but I never gave them the opportunity to steal during my shift. I would always keep an eye on them and engage them in conversation. They mistook that for my liking them. They were not bad kids, but they were the sort to take advantage of a situation if given the opportunity.

2 Likes

The anti-2A groups must love it when 2A supporters do their work for them.

3 Likes

Tell your friends to watch the Law of Self Defense videos and info on YouTube, etc.

Unless you are in Texas, and even there some conditions apply, I know of nowhere that considers use of lethal force acceptable for ONLY defense of stuff.

6 Likes

I agree, soy-boys are not able to take out the trash. They need us to do what they cannot. As they also typically do not work, we are doing their work, too, and paying the price for that as well. :upside_down_face:

2 Likes

Church Brother Church

I can honestly say I fought an insurance company so hard that they amended their policy and how the conditions in the policy were changed.

I carried an Insurance Policy that if my Car was stolen or totaled I would get the same type of car but 2 model years newer.

So I had random 17 year old kid in a lifted 4x4 GMC truck run over my SAAB convertible. When I say run over I mean exactly that. Easy enough you would think except my car was from the last Model year made by GM.

Suffice to say, my adjustor hated me. They wound up paying me Kelly Blue Book value + 20%+ $5000.

2 Likes

My stance is this, regardless of USCCA or whoever’s coverage in the matter. If you’re state allows defense of property, whether you exercise that right is up to you. I won’t hesitate to do the right thing, as to what the situation calls for, just because someone doesn’t agree. If it warrants a call to the sheriff’s office, that’s what happens. If it’s lethal response, I have been forced to in protection of things I spent my life working for. Etc.

2 Likes

The only state I know of that allows deadly force to defend property is Texas, and there are specific conditions required for the law to be in effect. Specifically, the burglary or robbery must be at night, and the defender must have good reason to believe that use of less-than-deadly force would create a situation in which there is risk of death or sever bodily harm.
Here is the relevant law (emphasis added):
Texas Penal Code, CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

3 Likes

Well aware of 9.42. I asked my suit about defense of property, along with other things related to defense, a good time ago and it is my councils understanding that

Have to be at night, and obviously one has to call for deadly force to utilize deadly force. In other words, I can’t shoot some meth head dragging my weed eater out of my shed just because I appreciate my weed eater. If possible, I have to ask nicely or use other non-lethal means. As far as such things like aggravated robbery, if someone is mugging you with a knife, that’s threat of imminent bodily harm or injury… even in the middle of the day.

2 Likes

Perhaps so. Not really defense of property there, but defense of self from that serious bodily harm or death

3 Likes