txinvestigator
TGT Addict
Your rock analogy is not just silly, it is stupid.
Texas Law Shield users
- Thread starter 68blackbird
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Many replied to my observations, but as of yet no one has answered them. The difference is that anyone can say anything (reply), but an answer involves citing third party (presumably reliable and presumably unbiased) sources to corroborate assertions. TxInvestigator came closest, but I have never asserted that the principles involved in TLS are not lawyers, so I'm not sure what the point of those links were.
Now, if you think my cites are unreliable, say so, and point me to another source of information. I haven't extensively researched the state bar of texas website, so perhaps it is unreliable. I'm (perhaps falsely) assuming it is a good source of information both factually and in completeness, but I freely admit I could be wrong.
Now, you might be more predisposed to give TLS the benefit of the doubt since your instructor disclosed that he gets paid for allowing them in his class. I, however, did not have that benefit in my own class. In point of fact, in retrospect, the instructor I had actually made comments during the presentation (which was NEVER identified as not being part of the CHL class) that served as assistance to the pitch. Certainly, you can see my misgivings and distrust as being not without merit. Unfortunately for me, I did not exercise proper judgement at the time, rather relying on (falsely assumed) impartiality of my instructor.
Just to be clear, I'm not accusing them of doing anything illegal, but personally I find such business practices very distasteful and under normal circumstances would not do business with such an organization. My ignorance is completely my own fault. I should have found more information before taking the class and certainly before signing up with them. I guess in this case I'm just one of those born every minute.
Now, if you think my cites are unreliable, say so, and point me to another source of information. I haven't extensively researched the state bar of texas website, so perhaps it is unreliable. I'm (perhaps falsely) assuming it is a good source of information both factually and in completeness, but I freely admit I could be wrong.
Now, you might be more predisposed to give TLS the benefit of the doubt since your instructor disclosed that he gets paid for allowing them in his class. I, however, did not have that benefit in my own class. In point of fact, in retrospect, the instructor I had actually made comments during the presentation (which was NEVER identified as not being part of the CHL class) that served as assistance to the pitch. Certainly, you can see my misgivings and distrust as being not without merit. Unfortunately for me, I did not exercise proper judgement at the time, rather relying on (falsely assumed) impartiality of my instructor.
Just to be clear, I'm not accusing them of doing anything illegal, but personally I find such business practices very distasteful and under normal circumstances would not do business with such an organization. My ignorance is completely my own fault. I should have found more information before taking the class and certainly before signing up with them. I guess in this case I'm just one of those born every minute.
breakingcontact
TGT Addict
Only reason I didn't sign up with them was the abrupt hard sell. In my CHL class over lunch a rep came in and I try not to make purchases on the spot, while captive and being pitched too. For me, a card or flyer left on a table would have been more effective. However, I was one of the very few who didn't sign up right then and there on the spot.
This thread has me thinking about signing up with them though.
This thread has me thinking about signing up with them though.
Yeah if you have the cash, developing a personal relationship with a lawyer or law firm and putting them on retainer probably would be the best way to go. Not everyone has the $20k or so it takes for a retainer... that's why legal insurance exists. I think most insurance (legal and others) is overpriced, but TLS actually seems reasonable. The thing that turns me off about TLS is the hard sell.
Read the contract very very carefully. It is NOT insurance, it does not cover civil liability (i.e. judgements against you), though that was implied in the pitch I received. It was never stated explicitly, I admit, but it was implied in that large civil judgements were cited, and intermixed with the pitch for the service. Also, you might want to find out who, specifically, would be your lawyer if the worse happens. Note that nowhere does it state that any of the principles will travel to your location to defend you, rather a lawyer in their network. I don't know about you, but I have to wonder about the effectiveness of a lawyer specializing in Entertainment law representing me in a CHL defense case. I have no reason to believe that he (or any lawyer in their network) isn't competent, but how good in a criminal matter is open to question. Also note, that it does explicitly state that they do NOT cover attorney's fees if you go outside their network. It's very much a take-it-or-leave it proposition.
So, here's what I see unfolding in a worse case scenario. Tragedy strikes, and you call TLS. You get a lawyer in their network who may (or may not) specialize in criminal law. If he does, great, you're probably set. Nowhere in the contract is the specialty of the lawyers guaranteed. Unless you're in Houston and get one of the principles, there's no contractual obligation and strictly speaking per the contract, there's no guarantee in Houston either. Anyone in their network could be assigned, and unfortunately TLS doesn't list (that I could find) who is in their network. He may be able to walk you through arrest, arraignment, posting bond, etc, but I have to wonder the extensiveness of his contacts outside his specialty. I mean, has he even practiced in criminal court before? Does he know bail bondsmen? I don't know, despite a fair amount of effort to find out under no pressure or time constraints. So, you may decide for whatever reason to go with another lawyer. That's your choice, but TLS won't cover it.
So, let's weigh the cost vs benefit. About $150/year(with multi-state add-on) for what is probably six billable hours or thereabouts,which would probably run about $1800 or so, and you're on the hook for your legal fees despite being covered by TLS. Is that worth it? By my math, no, but you may decide differently. My rough rule of thumb is, for low probability events, annual premiums should be no more than ~2% of potential liability, and even 2% is high. Please feel free to correct my calculations and estimates.
So, here's what I see unfolding in a worse case scenario. Tragedy strikes, and you call TLS. You get a lawyer in their network who may (or may not) specialize in criminal law. If he does, great, you're probably set. Nowhere in the contract is the specialty of the lawyers guaranteed. Unless you're in Houston and get one of the principles, there's no contractual obligation and strictly speaking per the contract, there's no guarantee in Houston either. Anyone in their network could be assigned, and unfortunately TLS doesn't list (that I could find) who is in their network. He may be able to walk you through arrest, arraignment, posting bond, etc, but I have to wonder the extensiveness of his contacts outside his specialty. I mean, has he even practiced in criminal court before? Does he know bail bondsmen? I don't know, despite a fair amount of effort to find out under no pressure or time constraints. So, you may decide for whatever reason to go with another lawyer. That's your choice, but TLS won't cover it.
So, let's weigh the cost vs benefit. About $150/year(with multi-state add-on) for what is probably six billable hours or thereabouts,which would probably run about $1800 or so, and you're on the hook for your legal fees despite being covered by TLS. Is that worth it? By my math, no, but you may decide differently. My rough rule of thumb is, for low probability events, annual premiums should be no more than ~2% of potential liability, and even 2% is high. Please feel free to correct my calculations and estimates.
GrandpaOf18
Active Member
Normally, I would be with you on the hard sell at the class. The only difference with me at my class, was that I had already decided to go with them anyway, having checked them out, and others, and settled on TLS. Since my mind was already made up, I took the discount that signing up at class offered, so save a little coin for something I had already decided to do anyway.
TexasCajun
New Member
C7 you're incorrect on s couple of points. The TLS plan does include representation in a civil trial. The TLS network only employs pro 2a criminal trial attorneys - they gave me the names of the firms that are in-network in other cities but I don't remember which ones.
Now you are correct in that the plan does not allow you to choose your own representation from outside their network. But that's sort of a no brainer.
On another note. The in-class hard-sell component would probably be eliminated if the proposal to reduce the initial chl class to 4hrs passes the state legislature & is signed into law. There simply wouldn't be enough time if that were to go through.
Sent from my GS 3 using Tapatalk 2
Now you are correct in that the plan does not allow you to choose your own representation from outside their network. But that's sort of a no brainer.
On another note. The in-class hard-sell component would probably be eliminated if the proposal to reduce the initial chl class to 4hrs passes the state legislature & is signed into law. There simply wouldn't be enough time if that were to go through.
Sent from my GS 3 using Tapatalk 2
Yes, TLS does include representation in a civil trial (usual caveats about lawyer specialty), but it is NOT insurance against any civil liability. That is what I actually said (It is NOT insurance, it does not cover civil liability). In other words, those large civil judgements they cite in their pitch are still on your dime, even if you are covered by TLS. It's representation ONLY. As I said, in retrospect, the salesman was very careful in his wording, but there was a good deal of story-telling about huge civil findings intermixed with the sales pitch that gave the contrary impression. I was stupid, it was early, etc.
Would you be willing to share that list of lawyers that are in their network? Despite very extensive digging, I have been unable to unearth more than the one I found on the State Bar site. I see nowhere in the contract where it makes the claim that only criminal trial attorneys are in their network nor does my search on the Texas Bar site or at the TLS site. Walker is a criminal defense attorney, but the others aren't identified as such nor is there any promise that any of those lawyers will represent you. And remember, there's a clause in the contract that DOES state that the contract is the only binding agreement, and any promises/inferences/whatever must be approved by an officer of the corporation, signed, and attached to the contract to have any weight.
It's been suggested that I have some sort of agenda. I have nothing to sell, I'm looking to buy based on solid evidence and not just something is better than nothing sentiment. What I have to wonder is how many CHL instructors defend or promote TLS because, at least in part, they are getting a slice of the pie? Don't you think failing to disclose such a relationship is suspect, and calls into question motivation in recommendations, or criticism against contrary views?
Would you be willing to share that list of lawyers that are in their network? Despite very extensive digging, I have been unable to unearth more than the one I found on the State Bar site. I see nowhere in the contract where it makes the claim that only criminal trial attorneys are in their network nor does my search on the Texas Bar site or at the TLS site. Walker is a criminal defense attorney, but the others aren't identified as such nor is there any promise that any of those lawyers will represent you. And remember, there's a clause in the contract that DOES state that the contract is the only binding agreement, and any promises/inferences/whatever must be approved by an officer of the corporation, signed, and attached to the contract to have any weight.
It's been suggested that I have some sort of agenda. I have nothing to sell, I'm looking to buy based on solid evidence and not just something is better than nothing sentiment. What I have to wonder is how many CHL instructors defend or promote TLS because, at least in part, they are getting a slice of the pie? Don't you think failing to disclose such a relationship is suspect, and calls into question motivation in recommendations, or criticism against contrary views?
Doesn't current state law protect you if the shoot is good? Pretty sure they added an affirmative defense against civil liability if the use if force was justified. That being said, there isn't a lot of risk for TLS or their subscribers here. Especially considering they won't represent you in an unjustified use of force scenario. Which would, in turn, open you up to civil liabilities.
TexasCajun
New Member
Yes, state law provides for an affirmative defense from civil suit in the case of a justified shoot. So representation in a civil suit would consist of making a motion to dismiss at a preliminary hearing (there's probably a bit more to it, but you should get the idea).
As I said earlier, I don't remember which firms they gave me. But I do recall that they checked out as being firms that handle criminal cases.
I would imagine that since TLS is not an actual law firm, the Texas bar website won't be of much use. It's more like a confederation where certain law firms have agreed to provide service for a predetermined fee should they be called into action.
As far as your assertion that they can simply stick you with any old lawyer when the contract specifically provides for representation in a criminal case, well that's just plain asinine.
I would encourage anyone interested in their service to call the main number & talk to them. They don't bite. They don't howl at you for asking "stupid" questions. They don't give you a bunch of double-talk.
Sent from my GS 3 using Tapatalk 2
As I said earlier, I don't remember which firms they gave me. But I do recall that they checked out as being firms that handle criminal cases.
I would imagine that since TLS is not an actual law firm, the Texas bar website won't be of much use. It's more like a confederation where certain law firms have agreed to provide service for a predetermined fee should they be called into action.
As far as your assertion that they can simply stick you with any old lawyer when the contract specifically provides for representation in a criminal case, well that's just plain asinine.
I would encourage anyone interested in their service to call the main number & talk to them. They don't bite. They don't howl at you for asking "stupid" questions. They don't give you a bunch of double-talk.
Sent from my GS 3 using Tapatalk 2
Ok, let me get this straight: you can't list any firms that are signed up with them, but I'm asinine for assuming that they will follow the letter of the contract, which makes no stipulation about the area of practice of lawyers in their network, and despite the one instance I could find of a lawyer who is identified on the Texas Bar site as being affiliated with TLS NOT having criminal or other suitable area of practice listed? Really?
C7.....the horse is dead - stop beating it. Anyone with half a brain can see that you DID come here with an agenda despite your protestations otherwise.
It's also pretty freakin' obvious that you have little to no real knowledge of the costs of legal representation - or if you do, you're doing your best to minimize 'em.
It's also pretty freakin' obvious that you have little to no real knowledge of the costs of legal representation - or if you do, you're doing your best to minimize 'em.
Have you considered calling them and asking them for the information since you seem to discredit secondhand information?
Of course not - that wouldn't let him spread doubt about a company he probably is selling something in competition with....
You know how I came here? I searched on "Texas Law Shield" and this site came up. I was attempting to find out information about the company, belatedly, but better late than never. However, no one has been able to cite anything other than their site. The testimonials there aren't even attributed, for god's sake. My own investigation has yielded little, but some of immense informational value to me. I'm at the point now that I wonder about the agenda of those defending them. Perhaps they are customers who truly believe in the product they have bought, but by all accounts, have never used. If so, good luck and fair wishes to them. But I also have to wonder how many are CHL instructors who have a financial relationship with TLS.
As I said in my first post, I'm new to the "gun culture". I've always been a staunch defender of SA rights, though it wasn't until a few months ago that I exercised my own. I'm doing my best to be a responsible gun owner, receiving training in their use and maintenance, going to the range to practice, doing dry-fire drills, etc. I'm middling so far, only scoring 238 on the CHL exam with, most worrying to me, one shot off-silhouette. My GF is a natural, upset that she "only" got a 249.
Unfortunately, it is very difficult to get any kind of reliable and verifiable information in the gun culture, in my experience to date. It seems that a large amount of internet activity is selling goods of dubious quality, or fanboys arguing over the merits of a given product/service over another (say Mossburg vs Remington, or Glock vs Sig as examples). In a word, sleazy. And that, unfortunately, seems to be the reason that gun culture and 2nd amendment rights are so successfully being marginalized today.
As I said in my first post, I'm new to the "gun culture". I've always been a staunch defender of SA rights, though it wasn't until a few months ago that I exercised my own. I'm doing my best to be a responsible gun owner, receiving training in their use and maintenance, going to the range to practice, doing dry-fire drills, etc. I'm middling so far, only scoring 238 on the CHL exam with, most worrying to me, one shot off-silhouette. My GF is a natural, upset that she "only" got a 249.
Unfortunately, it is very difficult to get any kind of reliable and verifiable information in the gun culture, in my experience to date. It seems that a large amount of internet activity is selling goods of dubious quality, or fanboys arguing over the merits of a given product/service over another (say Mossburg vs Remington, or Glock vs Sig as examples). In a word, sleazy. And that, unfortunately, seems to be the reason that gun culture and 2nd amendment rights are so successfully being marginalized today.
C7, sorry - but your posts here are anything but those of someone asking honest questions. You come on here, toss accusations against a business, question everything about 'em - yet refuse to do ANY of your own research, wanting those here to do it FOR you. When they do....you challenge 'em on it.
Here's a dollar - kindly go buy a pair of dull scissors and cut your keyboard cord with it and put ALL of us outta our misery.
Here's a dollar - kindly go buy a pair of dull scissors and cut your keyboard cord with it and put ALL of us outta our misery.
GrandpaOf18
Active Member
Very, very, few lawful CHL holders ever shoot anybody. Of those, next to none would ever admit on a public forum that "I shot somebody, and they helped" because they are not going to go public with the fact that they had to shoot sombody. So, let me get this right, you are looking for the needle in the heystack, and just can't understand why the needle doesn't jump out and say "Here I am"?
That's a fair point, GrandpaOf18: I can't imagine anyone with sense blabbing about a shooting on a forum. But answer me this: why are there NO news stories of TLS being successfully used? People have said "I know several people who have used them", but where can one verify any of these claims? I've looked, I and others have asked Shootings still make news, trials of shooters, especially justified, still make news. How do you explain the complete lack of any links to such stories? How do you explain nothing coming up in search results linking TLS to defending, in whatever fashion, one of their clients?
TexasRedneck, I have attempted to do my own research, and have come up with very little, and what little I have make me worry all-the-more. I came to this board hoping that those with more experience or knowledge to point me to unbiased sources, but apparently that's a touchy subject. With scant exception, most of their defenders seem to fall into fanboy category: they are fans despite the complete lack of evidence, and in spite of evidence presented that would give an unbiased observer pause to say the least.
I wish I knew an alternative, but the more I dig into this, the less hopeful I am. It's all so tawdry, riddled with unsubstantiated belief and questionable motives.
Just out of curiosity, who here is a CHL instructor? Do you allow TLS (or similar organization) to give their presentation to your classes, and do you get compensated in some fashion for it? Do you give your students disclosure of such an arrangement?
TexasRedneck, I have attempted to do my own research, and have come up with very little, and what little I have make me worry all-the-more. I came to this board hoping that those with more experience or knowledge to point me to unbiased sources, but apparently that's a touchy subject. With scant exception, most of their defenders seem to fall into fanboy category: they are fans despite the complete lack of evidence, and in spite of evidence presented that would give an unbiased observer pause to say the least.
I wish I knew an alternative, but the more I dig into this, the less hopeful I am. It's all so tawdry, riddled with unsubstantiated belief and questionable motives.
Just out of curiosity, who here is a CHL instructor? Do you allow TLS (or similar organization) to give their presentation to your classes, and do you get compensated in some fashion for it? Do you give your students disclosure of such an arrangement?
GrandpaOf18
Active Member
Again, C7, look at the math. Of those that are in the news, only a very small pct 'might' be TLS users, and of those that would want to make their stuff public, and be 'published', then that would be a handful or less, and I bet that small handful are the ones TLS uses on their website. I would be willing to bet that virtually all others, do not want it made public, so no testimonials to anybody, including you, will be forthcoming.
As far as tawdry, that is one mans opinion, of the same mans discussion.
My instructor did allow the presentation, and did disclose their arrangement, presentation was made while we ate the provided lunch. And for the record, there were 12 students, 10 signed up, 1 was looking at another competing product, 1 didn't believe in insurance of any kind.
Why wouldn't an organization pay to pitch their product to their narrow targeted audience? And why wouldn't another organization that is here to make a profit, take the pay to allow the pitch to their combined, narrow product? Nothing tawdry about it, just good old marketing and capitalism.
As far as tawdry, that is one mans opinion, of the same mans discussion.
My instructor did allow the presentation, and did disclose their arrangement, presentation was made while we ate the provided lunch. And for the record, there were 12 students, 10 signed up, 1 was looking at another competing product, 1 didn't believe in insurance of any kind.
Why wouldn't an organization pay to pitch their product to their narrow targeted audience? And why wouldn't another organization that is here to make a profit, take the pay to allow the pitch to their combined, narrow product? Nothing tawdry about it, just good old marketing and capitalism.
Staff online
-
VaqueroMoving stuff to the gas prices thread.....
Members online
- Texasgordo
- paknheat
- Steve In Texas
- Cool 'Horn Luke
- boomgoesthedynamite
- King76
- hoghunting
- justmax
- Chupacabra Hunter
- mexica
- Jhatt
- crystalphoto
- BeatTheTunaUp
- brashears9567
- Powderhead
- Bigguy
- tekiwap
- toddnjoyce
- Vaquero
- NP1724
- bigdhornfan
- zackmars
- rl96ss
- Mike_from_Texas
- hornd
- 13centkiller
- HKaltwasser
- milkdudengr
- prisondoc
- S13
- CentexGunner82
- glazer1972
- ZX9RCAM
- llbts1
- Darqhelmet
- OIF2
- jjminch
- BuzzinSATX
- xkon
- msharley
- RickLovesBacon
- Tonyt915
- TNHoosier
- Big Dipper
- ShootTheBreeze
- jgillaspy
- billtool
- Grumps21
- TexMex247
- Lumberjack98
