When you are falsely accused of a gun crime

[rp_photo]

Would any of the "Texas Legal Shield" type programs be of any help in such a situation?

[TexasCajun]

[pre-paid legal] will cover any incident where you have used your weapon. They won't cover you for trespass with a weapon or disorderly conduct with a weapon. So it would depend on the accusation / charge.

[rp_photo]

I've always wondered why there is no "real" legal insurance along the lines of medical, i.e. deductable, co-pay, and most importantly, out-of-pocket maximum.

[57Coastie]

I've always wondered why there is no "real" legal insurance along the lines of medical, i.e. deductable, co-pay, and most importantly, out-of-pocket maximum.

A very good question, rp, that deserves attention again now and then as new members of this forum are added.

The reason I think that is the case, rp, is that typical, responsible, and responsive liability insurance does not pay for your losses "due to intentional acts," and when you point your weapon, CHL or not, at what appears to you to be a bad guy and pull the trigger, although you at the time were convinced it was a matter of self-defense, you did "an intentional act." If you hold liability insurance of any kind, such as a typical homeowner's policy, I would suggest that you read the fine print, I stress the word "intentional" here, since the terms of a particular liability insurance policy may cover losses caused by the negligent use of your weapon.

Can you imagine, for example, an automobile liability policy insuring you for your losses, and the losses of the victim of your irresponsible intentional behavior, if you intentionally collide with another automobile? Not only would it be unlikely that you could purchase such coverage, but if you were you might expect a court to find such coverage to be unenforceable as a matter of social responsibility.

This question has been raised before on this forum, I have answered it as above, and on two occasions I had other forum members tell me (1) "but my liability policy does cover intentional acts," and (2) "but the salesman who sold me my liability policy told me that it does cover intentional acts." In both cases I politely asked the commentator to send me a scan of that language in their policy, or to quote it directly to me, and in both cases I requested that, if true, they advise me the name of their insurance company so that (in jest, of course) I might run out and buy coverage from them. I received a response from neither of them.

Now I will step before the firing line and give some free advice, which is not my habit on the Internet. While I am a lawyer, I am not your lawyer nor the lawyer of any other person who might read this. This is not legal advice, and any decisions you might make are your personal responsibility, and not mine. Take no action depending on my advice, and have your lawyering done properly by an attorney of your choice.

I recommend that you take advice you receive on the Internet about certain insurance covering elements of possible loss because of your intentionally using a firearm, such as legal expenses or physical harm to you or others, whether from an alleged expert or not, with a grain of salt -- and I include advice you might get on the Internet from me as being in that category. If that advice comes from a person who receives a profit, or a "kickback," if you will, from the named vendor, I would recommend more extreme caution. These comments are directed at absolutely no particular vendor. The comments are general.

It is worthy of note that giving advice with respect to the coverage offered by any particular vendor, when that advice proves wrong after the purchaser buys it and depends upon it, arguably makes the advisor liable to you for any losses you are cost by his bad advice. While this principal may be general in effect, it is much more likely if the faulty advice is given by an alleged "expert" or when the advisor makes a profit from your purchase of the policy, be it directly by the vendor or by way of a "kickback" to the advisor.

At a minimum I would recommend that you obtain in advance of purchase a copy of the policy in question, read and study the fine print carefully, and have it reviewed by a competent attorney knowledgeable in the field of insurance law and Texas gun law to whom you have explained completely and unambiguously why you might be interested in purchasing the policy. Alternatively, have the review done by a trustworthy and knowledgeable insurance broker/salesman. Obtain in writing any advice given to you by the vendor of the policy, the person receiving the "kickback" if there is one, and the attorney and/or insurance salesman/broker. With respect to the latter point, such advice as you might receive here on this forum from a CHL Instructor receiving payment of any kind by the ultimate vendor, should in my opinion, rightly or wrongly, receive the closest review. Then get from the vendor as many examples as you can of persons allegedly having used his coverage in respect of incidents about which you are concerned, and check out those references, keeping in mind that such references may or may not be trustworthy.

Lastly, it should be kept in mind that insurance shares one feature with most other products one purchases. With but few exceptions, the cost of a product is in direct proportion to its value. I might also suggest that the same is quite often applicable to advice given by an attorney. Why else would a knowledgeable and responsible attorney pay for expensive professional responsibility (malpractice, if you will) insurance? Why else would yours truly use the language I used above cautioning you to not take my advice as legal advice, and not to depend on it with respect to your actions?

I will close (you will be happy to hear) with one last point, once again noting that difficult questions are not wisely answered by simple answers.

I will observe that I have personally purchased such coverage from one particular vendor, after going through all the red tape suggested above, including having the advance hard copy reviewed by another attorney, very knowledgeable about Texas gun law and insurance law, and who has a CHL himself. I do not intend to mention the identity of the carrier. That is a personal decision which must be made by each individual after he or she (hopefully) makes an appropriate inquiry. The fact that I concluded that, on the basis of my inquiry, I made a decision, go further and describe what that decision was, might include me in the class of giving bad advice leading to the harm of another, should that advice be faulty -- and kid yourself not, I may have made a mistake when I decided on a particular coverage. I cannot assume that risk, although it is clear, through reading their postings, that there are members of this forum who do accept that risk, advising other members in writing, right here on the forum about what a particular policy covers. I doubt you will find many lawyers prepared to give such advice, particularly in writing, unless they have a financial interest in the vendor or charge a substantial fee to the potential purchaser.

I hasten to add that the fact that I personally made an affirmative decision about a particular carrier does not mean I made a negative decision about any other carrier. I did not jump through the hoops of the above "check 'em out" process with respect to any other carrier. My initial cut, followed by the above-described in-depth inquiry, was made solely on the basis of my personal knowledge of the sponsor of the coverage.

Jim

[Republicans 4 Obama]

Lastly, it should be kept in mind that insurance shares one feature with most other products one purchases. With but few exceptions, the cost of a product is in direct proportion to its value. I might also suggest that the same is quite often applicable to advice given by an attorney.

If I want to get to work, a Honda Civic does the job as good as a Bugatti Veyron. Maybe better. If I want a NFA trust, Sean Cody is probably a better choice than Rusty Hardin, but you have the right to pay more if it makes you feel good.

[57Coastie]

Lastly, it should be kept in mind that insurance shares one feature with most other products one purchases. With but few exceptions, the cost of a product is in direct proportion to its value. I might also suggest that the same is quite often applicable to advice given by an attorney.

If I want to get to work, a Honda Civic does the job as good as a Bugatti Veyron. Maybe better. If I want a NFA trust, Sean Cody is probably a better choice than Rusty Hardin, but you have the right to pay more if it makes you feel good.

I love your forum name, and I particularly admire your devotion and courage for using it here on this forum.

From a Democrat for Obama, whose smart car does the job for him adequately and is a heck of a lot of fun to boot.

Jim

[Abraham]

Moby,

Can you recommend a "just as effective" shorter version of what to say to an officer if the dreaded scenario should arise?

Your advice regarding what to say sounds, well, like a speech and I think (maybe it's just me) my anxiety in such a situation would just about short circuity everything but the simplest response.

...and I hope my request doesn't sound like I'm being a smart-aleck..., because that's honestly not my intent.

Thanks

[steveincowtown]

Lastly, it should be kept in mind that insurance shares one feature with most other products one purchases. With but few exceptions, the cost of a product is in direct proportion to its value. I might also suggest that the same is quite often applicable to advice given by an attorney.

If I want to get to work, a Honda Civic does the job as good as a Bugatti Veyron. Maybe better. If I want a NFA trust, Sean Cody is probably a better choice than Rusty Hardin, but you have the right to pay more if it makes you feel good.

Will your Civic pull my boat, haul hay for horses, make it through the rough terrain of a ranch, or take my family and dogs camping?

Hey, I can cut down a 100 year old Oak with a Swiss Army knife... That doesn't make it the best tool for the job.

I can speak from experience that when it comes to legal advice you get what you pay for.