YES, this is a concern

McClusky’s you’re probably right, but, what was Rittenhouse doing that was illegal?

1 Like

This is why we read the whole document. We had been talking about Riots as well if you were reading what everyone was saying.

" Justin47

1h

On top of that, understand there are many loopholes for them to step out on defending you. Words like normal circumstances. I look this up and asked some questions. Found out that if there is a riot in your town and a group breaks into your house it is not “normal circumstances”. They will not defend you if you protected your family. I found many things like this in the “agreement”. One of the reason I cut my membership up.

Could I be reading this all wrong, I’m billed annually. As for the policy it’s the same except for the addition.

1 Like

There is an option to pay monthly or annually, @OldGnome. Give us a shout if you’d like to switch to annual payments. :slight_smile:

2 Likes

And that is why the discussion is needed and relevant and why Tim Schmitt should address it to USCCAs members.

5 Likes

In my opinion nothing but there were riots going on in the area and a lot of people including the prosecution and media saying it was clear cut murder so uscca could infact say he committed murder and choose not to defend him

Two groups who are known for honesty and trustworthiness…

2 Likes

Your two cents is worth quite a bit to me , thank you, Love when you put things in layman’s terms!

7 Likes

I actually did the pictures because we all need to be on the same page, if we have to go to war, bickering about the small stuff will get us killed and nobody is covered.
God forbid war hits our shores, I will have you covered as long as you cover me! We are in this thing together, for lack of a better term and NO DISRESPECT, we are our own Band of Brothers!

This is no longer a concern of mine, I’m paid, I’m good, I like the service and all the people I have come to know here.

4 Likes

Sorry. I definitely did not mean to sound nasty.

If it was the first sentence of my post, it was just a statement of a fact. In reading it over, I agree that I am making an assumption on what other people did or should have done. I will try to change it to reflect only my circumstance.

If it was anything else, please let me know and I will try to edit to soften the tone.

2 Likes

Fish, I read the coverage as well but a normal person wouldn’t understand the loophole clause where if I were forced to defend myself and plead out on some minor thing, it could cost me overall. I’m a smart person who manages a score of people, manages a region and countless companies within the region and I know business like the back of my hand…but I wasn’t aware that making a plea deal like what was mentioned would negate my “coverage”. Don’t insult everyone because you may have a better legal understanding than the rest of us…legal jargon isn’t always clear.

3 Likes

I think this is indeed the $64,000, or rather, closer to the $1.000.000 question. What would cause the company to seek recoupment?

3 Likes

@Robert452
During George Washington’s day it was the $5 question. During Abraham Lincoln’s day it was the $20 question. I guess inflation has taken its toll on us.

8 Likes

I read the fine print and I accepted what the USCCA had to offer. By doing that I put faith in myself to put my conflict avoidance and situational awareness skills to use when I’m carrying a weapon. God willing I never have to find out how good or bad this clause actually is, but nonetheless I accept it.

8 Likes

There are no silver bullets.

Excellent.

I didn’t say I had a better understanding of legal terms, nor did I post to insult anyone. If you are involved in a contract and a change takes place, or just as a refresher, shouldn’t you read the contract again? If there are legal terms that you do not understand or they aren’t clear, shouldn’t you consult with someone more knowledgeable before you sign the contract?

2 Likes

Indeed.

Well, I recall reading the contract but it’s been a while. I’m fine with it. My initial reaction was melodramatic. I recall the part the video points out. I just assumed it dealt with guilty people. Hell, it would take a hell of a lot to force me to pull. In other words the person would have to be wielding a deadly weapon in a threatening manner. I do not want to hurt someone over property. Property can be replaced.

4 Likes

@MikeBKY Agreed.

We have to deal with “agreements” (specifically not called contracts) here at work so reading and intent are factors we have to present to customers frequently, or at least back in April-June with the wuhan thing.

Looking over their policy, they provide coverage from minute (day) 1, upon arrest. This is good and what everyone wants coverage upon arrest. The USCCA does not PRE-judge you they cover you PERIOD. Then after investigation, discovery, trial etc it was discovered that the incident was NOT self-defense, Yes, I can see how USCCA/DD would demand their money back.

4 Likes