CCW Safe Vs Texas Law Shield?

[stdreb27]

#1, What?

No, it does not cover appeals. Without it, you STILL pay out of pocket for the appeal, AND your other legel defense fees. Of course they can drop you. They havent yet, but be a stupid client and why would they keep you?

In regards to number 1.This is why.


"Legal representation is provided by an attorney in any criminal or civil procedure arising from an incident involving the Legal Service Contract Holder, in good standing, who has a use of a firearm as defined above, if the Legal Service Contract Holder is in a place within the State of Texas where the Legal Service Contract Holder is *********>>>>>>legally permitted to possess his or her firearm.<<<<<********* Legal representation for these matters shall extend to and include a trial (including retrials) on the merits in a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction. It shall not include appeals of a trial court’s judgment to a court of appeals."


Most of the other verbiage is in there too.

It wasn't a pro or con post. Simply a post defining what I believe their coverage is. and where I think you have the potential for unhappy customers.

Quite frankly they head off some significant liability such as not wanting to end up in the Supreme Court (that can be expensive). From their perspective lawyers will want the ability to drop their client.

The only one that bugs me is number 1. But judging from all the Ron Paulites and their YouTube goading of officers I understand them doing that too...

Once again. That post wasn't in criticism of their services. It was simply an explanation of their services.

I will complain about their salesmen. The last pitch I heard was pretty salacious, vague and high pressure.

 

[Younggun]

In regards to number 1.This is why.


"Legal representation is provided by an attorney in any criminal or civil procedure arising from an incident involving the Legal Service Contract Holder, in good standing, who has a use of a firearm as defined above, if the Legal Service Contract Holder is in a place within the State of Texas where the Legal Service Contract Holder is *********>>>>>>legally permitted to possess his or her firearm.<<<<<********* Legal representation for these matters shall extend to and include a trial (including retrials) on the merits in a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction. It shall not include appeals of a trial court’s judgment to a court of appeals."

Most of the other verbiage is in there too.

It wasn't a pro or con post. Simply a post defining what I believe their coverage is. and where I think you have the potential for unhappy customers.

Quite frankly they head off some significant liability such as not wanting to end up in the Supreme Court (that can be expensive). From their perspective lawyers will want the ability to drop their client.

The only one that bugs me is number 1. But judging from all the Ron Paulites and their YouTube goading of officers I understand them doing that too...

Once again. That post wasn't in criticism of their services. It was simply an explanation of their services.

I will complain about their salesmen. The last pitch I heard was pretty salacious, vague and high pressure.

What you gotta bring Ron Paul in to this?

 

[stdreb27]

What you gotta bring Ron Paul in to this?

Lol I've never ever stirred a pot ever.

I was just trying it on for size.

 

[stdreb27]

This makes number 1 more clear


"“Use of a Firearm” – Any incident where the Legal Service Contract Holder either discharges or displays a firearm for the purpose of using the firearm as a weapon to stop a threat, whether the Legal Service Contract Holder pulls the trigger and discharges the firearm or not. ->>>This term does not include taking the firearm to a location that is prohibited by federal, state, or local law, negligent or unintended discharges, or negligent or unintended displays.<-----"

 

[Booyah]

This makes number 1 more clear


"“Use of a Firearm” – Any incident where the Legal Service Contract Holder either discharges or displays a firearm for the purpose of using the firearm as a weapon to stop a threat, whether the Legal Service Contract Holder pulls the trigger and discharges the firearm or not. ->>>This term does not include taking the firearm to a location that is prohibited by federal, state, or local law, negligent or unintended discharges, or negligent or unintended displays.<-----"

Actually that would only make #1 more clear if you fixed the typo in #1:

1. No coverage in a dispute if you're legally carrying

I hope what you meant to say was that they will not cover you if you are illegally carrying...which of course makes perfect sense.

 

[Booyah]

OK I give up. I did not intend to entertain discussion about the merits of these types of services in general but hey...if you can't beat'em join'em.

I will restate something that TXI has asked and hopefully I won't be called a troll because of it.

I am concerned with putting plans in place that will mitigate, to the extent possible, the legal and financial liabilities to me and my family that inevitably come from the use of deadly force in today's society. I am open to any and all suggestion of how to do this.

For those that have genuinely looked into these services I will make two assumptions that I hope are reasonable...first, you must have some of the same types of concerns as me about liability, and second, you must not already have a reputable lawyer on retainer...otherwise you wouldn't have a need to look for such a service.

Now to restate the question that no one has answered yet...for those of you who have looked into these services and decided they are not for you, what plans do you have in place? Please understand I do not mean this as a "gotcha" question. I really want to know because, if my previous two assumptions were even close to being correct, then either you have no plans or you have found other plans that you believe are better for you and your circumstances. If the latter is true then I am honestly asking you to share with me what you have come up with. Other may be able to benefit from your experience.

 

[stdreb27]

Actually that would only make #1 more clear if you fixed the typo in #1:



I hope what you meant to say was that they will not cover you if you are illegally carrying...which of course makes perfect sense.

Saying legally made it confusing? (Serious question)
I was thinking from my perspective I say I'm legally carrying, law enforcement officer disputes that. At least that was my train of thought.

 

[stdreb27]

Here is a link to the other guys terms and conditions.


http://ccwsafe.com/terms/

IMO their terms aren't as well written.

They'll cover you in civil criminal court for shooting someone.
Doesn't say they'll drop you, (unless I missed something)


They will cover all self defense in your house. So you kill someone with your bare hands up to a gun, in your house or while you're the victim of a crime.

They say nothing about appeals.

They say they'll pay for investigation and lawyers fees.

These terms and conditions are looser than TLS. But makes me wonder how good their lawyers are...

I'm not sure the angle, but they limit their coverage to concealed weapons permit holders.

 

[Booyah]

First let my say thanks for that second post...that is exactly the kinds of opinions I was looking for...it's much appreciated.

As for the other topic...I had a big response all typed up ready to go but as my brain kept churning on it I realized another thing I may be misunderstanding about your post. When you referred to being accused of illegally carrying, I assumed that you meant such an accusation was subsequent to a self defense scenario where you used your gun. If that is what you were thinking, I don't think it is reasonable to assume the legal counsel you hired would automatically take the cops side against you...I'm no expert but that sounds close to legal malpractice. If however, you meant that there was no self defense involved, you never used your gun, and all you were being charged with is illegally carrying (criminal trespass) then you are correct...TLS does not cover that. They state that pretty clearly.

 

[Robb in Austin]

OK I give up. I did not intend to entertain discussion about the merits of these types of services in general but hey...if you can't beat'em join'em.

I will restate something that TXI has asked and hopefully I won't be called a troll because of it.

I am concerned with putting plans in place that will mitigate, to the extent possible, the legal and financial liabilities to me and my family that inevitably come from the use of deadly force in today's society. I am open to any and all suggestion of how to do this.

For those that have genuinely looked into these services I will make two assumptions that I hope are reasonable...first, you must have some of the same types of concerns as me about liability, and second, you must not already have a reputable lawyer on retainer...otherwise you wouldn't have a need to look for such a service.

Now to restate the question that no one has answered yet...for those of you who have looked into these services and decided they are not for you, what plans do you have in place? Please understand I do not mean this as a "gotcha" question. I really want to know because, if my previous two assumptions were even close to being correct, then either you have no plans or you have found other plans that you believe are better for you and your circumstances. If the latter is true then I am honestly asking you to share with me what you have come up with. Other may be able to benefit from your experience.

Troll.



My plan, such as it is, is to contact someone after the fact. If I can be convinced that something like TLS/CCW is for real, I'll sign up. As of now, I'm not convinced.

My thought is, why send $100+ for something I hope to never need without evidence that they will do what they say they will do? I have no fear that they won't represent me. My fear is getting hit with another $10K+ bill after the fact.

 

[Charlie]

 

[stdreb27]

First let my say thanks for that second post...that is exactly the kinds of opinions I was looking for...it's much appreciated.

As for the other topic...I had a big response all typed up ready to go but as my brain kept churning on it I realized another thing I may be misunderstanding about your post. When you referred to being accused of illegally carrying, I assumed that you meant such an accusation was subsequent to a self defense scenario where you used your gun. If that is what you were thinking, I don't think it is reasonable to assume the legal counsel you hired would automatically take the cops side against you...I'm no expert but that sounds close to legal malpractice. If however, you meant that there was no self defense involved, you never used your gun, and all you were being charged with is illegally carrying (criminal trespass) then you are correct...TLS does not cover that. They state that pretty clearly.

Lol you're reading way to far into it.

Both those companies use language like -coverage of use of force during lawful carry.-


Their services are not intended to defend you on the event that the lawful part is in dispute.

At the end of the day The concealed weapons guys have more favorable terms and conditions. Assuming you have a chl.

 

[Doctor SigFan]

I think from the standpoint of the lawyers involved in this, it's a "win-win" from a bottom-line business standpoint: The money keeps rolling in, and the likelihood of a CCW holder committing a crime with their firearm is extremely low (arguably lower or about the same as off-duty law enforcement officers). If you maintain a CCL (required under the terms of agreements that I have read), you've demonstrated that you're not a criminal. Like all of you on this forum, I take extra care to follow the "letter of the law"...no excessive speeding, no brandishing a weapon, no violations of the form 4473 questions, avoiding confrontations, etc. We've been fingerprinted and our records scrutinized by our local sheriff in the process of obtaining our permits. We are highly unlikely to use our carefully maintained handguns or rifles in criminal activity. The biggest risk for the lawyers is that we will encounter law enforcement in the aftermath of a defensive shooting (which will likely occur in our homes or on our property--all of us have enough sense to avoid a jackass elsewhere...but if the jackass doesn't avoid us, he will probably appear to be a jackass to a jury). Such defensive shooting cases will likely be straightforward defensible ones for the lawyers. The lawyers' idea is to keep those annual fees rolling in while we subscribers continue our boring, law-abiding lifestyles. They may have fewer than 1 in 1000-10000 CCL subscribers who actually need their services. Meanwhile, their business model is contingent upon CCL holders paying their premiums and staying out of trouble (which you have to do to keep your permit).

 

[stdreb27]

I think from the standpoint of the lawyers involved in this, it's a "win-win" from a bottom-line business standpoint: The money keeps rolling in, and the likelihood of a CCW holder committing a crime with their firearm is extremely low (arguably lower or about the same as off-duty law enforcement officers). If you maintain a CCL (required under the terms of agreements that I have read), you've demonstrated that you're not a criminal. Like all of you on this forum, I take extra care to follow the "letter of the law"...no excessive speeding, no brandishing a weapon, no violations of the form 4473 questions, avoiding confrontations, etc. We've been fingerprinted and our records scrutinized by our local sheriff in the process of obtaining our permits. We are highly unlikely to use our carefully maintained handguns or rifles in criminal activity. The biggest risk for the lawyers is that we will encounter law enforcement in the aftermath of a defensive shooting (which will likely occur in our homes or on our property--all of us have enough sense to avoid a jackass elsewhere...but if the jackass doesn't avoid us, he will probably appear to be a jackass to a jury). Such defensive shooting cases will likely be straightforward defensible ones for the lawyers. The lawyers' idea is to keep those annual fees rolling in while we subscribers continue our boring, law-abiding lifestyles. They may have fewer than 1 in 1000-10000 CCL subscribers who actually need their services. Meanwhile, their business model is contingent upon CCL holders paying their premiums and staying out of trouble (which you have to do to keep your permit).

That's the game of risk mitigation.

 

[bowserb]

I did read here or on that other Texas forum about a couple of cases where tls took care of them, and one of them the guy did something dumb enough that I would have dropped him.

But the number one reason to get some coverage? What if the scumbag mugger you shoot looks like Obama's son!


Please excuse typos. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.

 

[Bozz10mm]

Here is another option that was recently brought to my attention by my CHL course instructor. It appears that they do pay some cash up front for attorneys and bail. I am not sure, but I think they are somehow affiliated with the NRA. Rates seem fairly reasonable.

Second Call Defense | Complete Legal Protection for Armed Self Defense

 

[bowserb]

There was an online newspaper article linked from another forum, about gun owners reacting to the Zimmerman case and rushing to get coverage. The article mentioned that Texas Law Shield has over 70,000 members. If that is accurate, then TLS should have a healthy reserve. 70k members works out to, depending on the mix of CHL-non CHL-multi-state CHL accounts, around $8 million a year in fees collected. Unless they're crooks--a possibility one can never rule out with lawyers--they should be able to handle most cases they're likely to get, particularly when you remember that they would be the lawyer on your case, not someone they'd have to hire.


Sent using Tapatalk...so please excuse the typos!

 

[bluesboyk3]

In reading the CCW Safe site, I see that they state(under the single membership area):

"By remitting membership payment, buyer is purchasing the rights to services for representation of one person in any legal matter stemming from a use of force incident pursuant to a duly licensed in good standing concealed carry weapon permit for one year from the date of this acknowledgement. "

and then

"Recognized use of force incidents include both civil, criminal and administrative actions taken by a STATE, LOCAL OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR REGULATORY AGENCY which administers a state’s concealed carry permit system"(emphasis mine)

This sounds like legal mumbo jumbo to say they will NOT protect you from private lawyers suing on behalf of who ever you shot. But maybe I'm reading this wrong.

That said, I liked the CCW site better and then I looked at the TLS site and noticed it has changed since the last time I looked. There is a ton more info on the TLS site than there was 8 months ago. The thing that would push me more towards TLS, and I don't currently use their services, is being Texas based.

Rob, i took my chl class and yes, they clearly say you/ me - as the shooter will not be immune from civil suits BUT TLS says they will go all the way with you from criminal to civil trial. Anything that involves having a lawyer, they will represent you all the way.
So in short i did become a member of TLS and yes i do believe what the other poster said about it some sort of like having an insurance when that day comes that you need to use lethal force to defend my family or myself.

FWIW - they asked you to reprogram the emergency number. I have a smartphone and my daughter accidentally press that number when she was trying to play her games. The person assigned to me called immediately asking if I'm alright and has there been an incident. This is off office hours too (8 pm )