great review Keith. I have been looking at this stuff for so long it seems. Comparing everything down to the detail of coverage can be mind boggling.
We had a a bit of an overview with Armed Citizen Legal Defense yesterday. The one thing that was off putting to me about them is this scenario: S has hit the fan, you call their hotline, someone picks up and they hear your side of the story...but no action is taken until their "board" convenes and THEY decide that it was a righteous shoot, etc. meanwhile you're sitting in jail, maybe you're charged maybe you're not. Then THEY decide whether or not to take the case on. Doesn't sound much like self defense protection to me. Sounds pretty similar to the kind of behavior we hear coming from other "providers" of this sort of service. i understand no one wants to lose as case, but if you advertise yourself as a service that someone PAYS for then, dern it...you better step up and do your job. If not then I call it fraud.
ACLDN, like any other 'protection' coverage, has a duty before paying money to assess that it is in fact a lawful justified self-defense action. That's prudent.
That you want an immediate payout before an assessment is foolish. It's not fraudulent to require an assessment. That's how they stay in business.
Your argument is flawed, without merit, and seriously lacking in common business and legal sense.
You're looking to ACLDN to provide something they don't pretend to provide. They make no pretense about covering things you WANT them to cover for such a low fee. I look at ACLDN as an adjunct to my policy with CCW SAFE which covers criminal defense and civil defense and liability. Frankly, it sounds like you want a Cadillac for a Volkswagen price. If you want coverage that's reliable and complete, you will have to pay for that up front. If your goal is to save money up front, don't act surprised or upset when the coverage isn't what you hoped for. That's a leftist vision of the USA - "Let someone else pay the price while I enjoy the benefit"
Please demonstrate to me where I said ANYTHING about COST? I wrote, "I understand no one wants to lose a case, but if you advertise yourself as a service that someone PAYS for then, dern it...you better step up and do your job." This is applicable to ANY service out there.
We all have to do our own due diligence in these matters and make choices on what's best for ourselves. I simply stated facts as I have discovered them.
Your attacking my viewpoint, based on facts, being communist is, in fact, a communist viewpoint/tactic- "see it my way or else". Not playing the emoting game.
I agree with you. You're pointing out legitimate concerns that should be addressed, rather be criticized for having asked them. Appreciate your service to our country.
If you read and comprehend what ACLDN says on their web site, you would understand how and why they differ from the other types of "protection" products.
The discussion is really irrelevant to me. Different people have different risk levels that they are willing to accept based on their circumstance. Acdl doesnt fall into my risk acceptance level circumstances. I didn't say they are necessarily bad, just not for me. Not playing the emoting game again.
I use Armed Citizen Legal Defense Network for our churches coverage. I live in NY, and their coverage for us seems reasonable. I haven't had to use them but they are proactive in helping answer questions or concerns about them
And the MAG-80. AND whatever tactical classes you can find. Firearms Academy of Seattle is excellent, and is one of the venues Mas uses for his classes.
Might want to check the legality of your coverage in NY. That state severely restricts legal defense for self defense protection. USCCA, US LAW SHIELD, and others are prohibited by the laws of NY
Great article thanks for all you do! For those of you stuck in Washington, check out US Law Shield. The insurance commissioner let USLS back in after they complied with all state requirements and got their reps certified as insurance agents. No caps, $10.95/month, and it worked great for Jack Wilson in TX.
It's not that someone might not want insurance. It's that it's illegal to provide insurance for illegal acts. Hence, none of these products is designed as or marketed as insurance, but people (consumers) are often loose with their language or don't really understand that it's not insurance.
Keith - I strongly disagree with your conclusion regarding CCW "insurance". I am a private citizen and a volunteer church security team member. Because I have substantial liability exposure and assets, I carefully examined policies from each of the companies listed and spoke with representatives (and sometimes the owners) of CCW Safe, USCCA, Right to Bear, and US Law Shield.
My criteria include many of the factors you listed. However, at the end of the day, the MOST important factor was how I will I fare if I am involved in a self-defense incident and face civil and/or criminal prosecution. In large part, this depends on the coverage afforded by the company and the reliability of the company.
While the cost of coverage may seem to be a significant factor a priori, it is of little or no concern when actually faced with such prosecution. Indeed, the phrase, “penny wise,, but pound foolish” comes to mind.
What is truly important to someone facing prosecution is the coverage afforded and your examination should have compared policies once the available and preferred add-ons were added in, e.g. church volunteer options, criminal and civil defense, civil liability, bail, etc. Your statement that you either gave less attention or disregarded policy add-ons is a “head in the sand” approach and one that ignores the reality that most people don’t need or want coverage as a church security volunteer.
CCW SAFE is the clear winner if one selects the ULTIMATE plan which covers activities as a church security volunteer. CCW SAFE also provides coverage for civil LIABILITY in addition to civil DEFENSE. NOTE: Many people don’t recognize that LIABILITY (the amount you will have to pay the plaintiff if you lose a civil suit) is different that DEFENSE (the legal/attorney fees). Indeed, when Right to Bear presented their coverage to our church security team, the representative apparently didn’t understand this and stated at least twice that civil liability was covered until it was pointed out to him that there is a difference and the policy doesn’t include liability coverage!
In my experience, there is no such thing as a “Christian” company. There are Christians (or at least people who profess to be Christians. Unfortunately, I have been swindled more by companies openly advertising themselves as being a “Christian company” than by other companies (including companies run by Christians who act out their faith rather than use it as an advertising gimmick). I think the Bible speaks to this.
A truly informed and serious person will also STRONGLY consider taking Massad Ayoob’s MAG-40 class and joining Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network (the principals exemplify their Christian faith by their actions and demonstrated concern for their students and members). Having the knowledge of the legal aspects of self-defense lessens the likelihood that, faced with a situation, one will ponder what to do and waste valuable time, or make poor decisions. The cost of MAG-40 is well worth the opportunity to learn from a pioneer in the firearms industry and a truly gracious and erudite gentleman.
I also strongly recommend Ayoob’s “Deadly Force” book as well as Andrew Branca’s “Law of Self Defense” book.
USCCA is not to be discounted – while there have been some reliability issues, one can get coverage for a year and take advantage of their educational features.
IMHO Attorneys on Retainer are more interested in cutting down the competition than demonstrating the good they can do.
It’s OK to disagree with me Mike. I have been sued before and have been involved in civil litigation in self defense shootings. I’m sorry you had a bad engagement with a rep from Right to Bear. I am definitely not a shill for a company. I see that you are very passionate about this and we need more of that in church security. You can go with whomever you wish. I’ll keep looking at this year after year and will report back around this time next year. I knew going into this everyone would have their own opinions and that those opinions would be strongly rooted.
No problem, Keith. I enjoy your content and think this controversial issues are the ones that most need to be addressed in forums such as this. I'm more concerned with the clarity of my points that with anyone necessarily agreeing with me. It's rare to convince anyone in a forum setting, but if we clearly state our position based on facts and logic, the reader can mull things over he otherwise might not have considered and form his own opinion. For clarification: Were you sued when you were in law enforcement and covered at the expense of agency/department - there is a difference from being sued as a private citizen and being sued as a LEO. It still sucks and is a tremendous mental stress!
PS: CCW SAFE will also cover church security volunteers under a church policy from minimum of 3 members on the team (not all members need to subscribe). This is a relatively inexpensive option (maybe $275 per year).
Another extremely important note is that Right to Bear Arms plan has an add on of $4 to even get up to $100k of bond coverage where CCW Safe includes 1M bond coverage. I do not believe for a second that any bond in a most States will be under 100k. I also chose CCW Safe. They are upfront with the devil in the details where I could not find the likes on Right to Bear Arms site.
1. Providing legal protection coverage for firearms related incidents is a lucrative business with relatively few players. Like cheese, easy money attracts rats.
2. Don't imagine for a minute that the people running these companies are doing so out of some altruistic Christian sense of duty or because they want to help you. They are in it for the money and only in a Smithies sense are they interested in helping you.
3. The ones to be especially leery of are the "former" insurance salesmen. Do you trust insurance salesmen? Do you trust him simply because he found easier prey and now wears sheep's clothing?
4. Is your primary concern is the cost to you AFTER a self-defense incident (defense and liability costs) or the cost before such incident (cost of premiums)? If you primary concern is the cost of premiums, don't purchase any policy - the odds are you'll never be in a gunfight. However, if you recognize that it's not the odds, but the stakes, carefully consider the expenses you could possibly encounter if you are charged with a crime, sued in civil court, and/or loose a civil trial.
Many church (and church school) sheepdogs are retired law enforcement officers. Several police organizations including labor groups offer concealed coverage for both off duty and retired officers that can provide an added layer of legal protection and some can be economical. For example, PORAC (a California based legal/labor organization) offers CCW coverage and LDF (Legal Defense Fund) protection at very low cost. When I moved to Texas post-retirement I discovered that FOP (Federation of Police) also offers plans for off duty and retired officers.
Be sure to let your homeowner's insurance carrier know that you are interested in an all-perils "Umbrella" policy. These are usually relatively low cost addition to your homeowner's policy that offers additional protection since anyone (or their family) you may shoot, however justified, will likely sue you personally in an effort to cash in on your assets. If you own a home it is a likely target of a civil suit if you are involved in a shooting incident.
Be sure that your church's own insurance carrier, risk management folks, and legal advisors review your team's P&P's (Policies and Procedures) and ROE's so that all stakeholders are on the same page.
Hey Gary, I personally don’t give PORAC my money anymore. They have endorsed far right people that do not possess biblical values. They have lost their way of the old PORAC days. As for FOP, I do believe that is a better program if you are a retired police officer.
Yes, PORAC is not the organization it was during my working days. Politics, wokeness, and turning away from biblical values and teaching has ruined so many once great organizations and institutions.
In both California and now Texas my homeowner's policy added an umbrella policy to the existing policy ... perhaps it may be referred to as a "rider" but it is at a reasonable (IMHO) upcharge for the peace of mind. I did, in writing, inform the insurance co. that I was a police officer (back in the day, now retired) who carries.
Hi Ken, I am unfamiliar of what kind of rider you mentioned related with home insurance. Is it some sort of coverage for civil lawsuits for self defense at my property that can be covered by home insurance?
Better get that in writing that they will cover it. The umbrella is to cover civil damages in dollars. If you act in self defense, that policy will not provide you immediate access to an attorney, nor will it pay for a criminal defense attorney to defend you during the criminal investigation/and charges filed against you.
Correct. It is just to help protect your assets should you lose in civil court. It does nothing for any criminal or departmental actions that would require legal defense. That's what the other policies mentioned above are for.
I've gotta throw the BS flag at Keith's conclusions (and Ken Hardy's excuses):
Keith's initial explanation of criteria and reasons for downgrading some plans included the statement:
ITEM 1:
Popular Plans Did Not Meet the Criteria
Several popular plans failed to meet the specific needs of church security teams. I had considered naming the companies that fell short, but after receiving significant pushback from legal representatives, I chose to focus on what you should look for in a plan instead. THE AMBIGUITIES IN THESE CONTRACTS OFTEN PROTECT THE COMPANY, not you, especially when it comes to church-related self-defense incidents.
SOME PLANS DID NOT COVER YOU FOR CIVIL LAWSUITS. You have a 60% chance of getting sued after a self defense shooting AND THAT CAN BE MORE EXPENSIVE THAN THE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.
ITEM 2:
(RTB) meets all the critical criteria, offering comprehensive coverage
ITEM 3:
John Flynn stated "...from what I can tell, they are missing one critically important piece of coverage: civil liability coverage. Yes, they offer legal defense coverage for civil cases . . . but their website clearly states: "We are not insurance therefore, we do not offer coverage for civil liability.""
KG responded: "I’m not sure where you’re seeing that. It clearly states on their page that they cover civil liability."
ITEM4:
Ken Hardy: "I assure you that Keith did his homework. I helped him!"
CONCLUSSIONS BASED ON THE ABOVE:
1. There is reason to believe that Keith was either confused regarding the difference between civil liability (the monetary award) and civil defense (the cost to defend a civil suit), OR Keith was misinformed about the coverage RTB provides.
2. The fact that someone from RTB "helped him" do "his homework" in researching these plans raises a concern for bias and the possibility that someone from RTB led to such confusion.
3. As noted in ITEM #1, Keith's selection process involved concerns about AMBIGUITIES in contract terms. The shifting definitions of civil liability, civil liability defense, etc. certainly make me wonder about ambiguities Keith may have encountered while doing his homework .
4. As for RTB meeting all the criteria for COMPREHENSIVE COVERAGE, I must strongly disagree unless one stipulates that coverage for civil liability (the monetary award) is not necessary to meet the definition of "comprehensive".
Keith - I truly appreciate all you have done and continue to do for the community, but the BS flag stands and I think you need to call an audible and consider a new play. Like I indicated in my initial post, companies boasting about their Christian credentials in order to gain advantage in marketing their products/services to other Christians are like wolves in sheep's clothing. Beware of the man who boasts publicly of his Christian service.
I believe there are few posts from others doing the comparison between various ccw plans already. I am not sure what kind of legal push back Keith has received. If it is just compare the information listed in those companies website, you are just speaking out the truth. Why be concerned?
Thank you so much for your time and resources Keith. I have been researching this as well and find that it just over whelming amount of data. God bless you and UR family.
I like what you said about Right to Bear. As a retired Attorney and the Leader of a Church Security Team, I like you, know it is important to have Insurance Coverage.
Here is my situation. I live in the best State for Freedom in America, Idaho. However, I am the leader of a Church Security Team at a church 4 miles away from my home. That church is located in Washington.
Does Right to Bear's Insurance cover someone like me who resides in a free State but worships and is the Leader of a Church Security Team in a State such as Washington?
PS did you ever get the video about the Bytna completed?
Thanks and god bless you and all church Security Team Members.
If you have traveled to Washington State, and have purchased the Multi State coverage option, you would have RTB coverage. RTB cannot sell to residents of Washington State, NJ and NY, but non residents of those states are covered in all 50 states if they have purchased the Multi State coverage
Civil liability coverage (individual CCW coverage) would rise to the top in my future choices when I switch companies. I want a company that will cover this and not just attorney fees. I think this is vital in our crazy, litigious culture. This cost alone could put you in the poor house.
While I certainly appreciate the Christ-centered focus of Right to Bear . . . from what I can tell, they are missing one critically important piece of coverage: civil liability coverage. Yes, they offer legal defense coverage for civil cases . . . but their website clearly states: "We are not insurance therefore, we do not offer coverage for civil liability." (https://protectwithbear.com/pages/ccw-insurance) So the best concealed carry insurance for church security . . . is not insurance? Without civil liability coverage, if you're found guilty in a civil case, you might have avoided the legal fees, but you'll still be paying the judgement out of pocket. If I am wrong about this, I'd be glad to humbly accept the correction. But as far as I can tell, CCW Safe is the best choice, in part because of their inclusion of this coverage.
I directly asked the online RTB rep about Civil Liability coverage. This is their response:
"While we provide unlimited coverage for legal fees associated with both civil and criminal suits, it's important to note that our service does not cover civil damages. This means that if you lose a civil trial, all your legal and court fees will be paid upfront, but any amount awarded to the opposing party that you need to pay would not be covered by us."
That's right. Y'all act like the criminal justice system will treat you fairly and your only concern is civil damages. How is that criminal representation serving you from those civil payment "Insurance" companies?
From the RTB website - chat questions: While our service does provide unlimited coverage for all legal fees for criminal and civil suits, it does not cover civil damages. So, if you were to lose your civil trial, all of your legal and court fees would still be paid upfront. However, any amount awarded to an opposing party that is to be paid by you would not be covered by Right to Bear. We hope this helps!
Thank you Keith. If that is the case, can you please provide the link, and mention how much civil liability coverage they provide? From what I can tell, they only provide civil defense costs, not liability coverage . . . which are two different things. Their website clearly states: "We are not insurance therefore, we do not offer coverage for civil liability." (https://protectwithbear.com/pages/ccw-insurance).
CCW Safe provides up to $1.5M Civil Liability Coverage, depending on the plan (https://ccwsafe.com/plans/).
See my posts above. Don't get hung up on civil. Your more important concern is criminal defense. A couple of organizations offer civil damage coverage at great expense. There is a reason they offer it. It's a safe bet. All of these companies being discussed are all FOR PROFIT, and the civil award aspect is a safe bet for them, and they know that. I know this: RTB is the only God centered company.
Flynn makes good point. Further, in criminal case, guilt must be proven “beyond a reasonable doubt”. In civil case, it’s preponderance of evidence (50% plus 1). If it was accidental discharge, there is no self-defense liability waiver for the civil trial if you are found not guilty in criminal trial. When someone says, “Don’t worry”, wise people worry.
OJ was famously convicted in a civil case, but not a criminal case. I agree that if someone has a criminal conviction, the civil judgement might a secondary concern for some . . . but for those with spouses and children, a civil judgement is a major concern, and having coverage for that event is very important to those people. I've mentioned several times now that RtB's website clearly states: "We are not insurance therefore, we do not offer coverage for civil liability." (https://protectwithbear.com/pages/ccw-insurance).
If they do, in fact, provide civil liability coverage, it should be easy for you or Keith to provide a link to that information, and a statement of how much coverage they provide. But it seems like all of the responses so far have either been "it's OK to disagree" or "they provide civil defense coverage" . . . neither of which addresses the issue. If you are now admitting that they don't provide civil liability coverage, then that is a very important piece of information that people should have when making an informed decision. If someone decides that they don't care about that coverage, then fine. But I don't think it's responsible to act like it's so unimportant that it's not work mentioning or considering. To myself, and many others, that coverage is an extremely important thing to consider. I pray that you and Keith will consider making this clear to readers / followers. Thank you.
KEITH - Please clarity what you think "cover civil liability" means. Do you think it means (a) they pay the attorney (defense) costs for a civil trial, or (b) they pay to civil liability (monetary award) that you would have to pay to the plaintiff, or (c) both a & b.
I can answer for him. Pays for civil representation. That's it. No civil damages are paid. No one ever implied that until someone convoluted the discussion.
1. Keith is a big boy and can speak for himself. Your efforts at shielding him from addressing this question sound like you are trying to keep him in the dark. Frankly, your frantic efforts on this forum have solidified my distrust in Right to Bear.
2. I did not ask what RTB covers or doesn't cover. I asked Keith what his understanding regarding "defense" or "attorney" costs and the "liability" or "monetary" award. His perception (or misperception) may be different than reality and may be at the root of our disagreement.
I am not shielding Keith. These are not my opinions. I have a lot of knowledge in this arena and was attempting to clarify your concerns, which it appears, is not your intention.
AGREE 100% with CCW SAFE. So does Ryan Cleckner - former US Army Ranger and current attorney specializing in firearms issues - who has reviewed all these companies.
If you have a judgement against you in a self defense incident, your bigger worry is that you likely have been convicted of improper action in self defense. And if you don't have IMMEDIATE, PROACTIVE, EXPERIENCED, and WELL PAID CRIMINAL DEFENSE, all the civil liability pay out is worth nothing. As I noted before, to this point in time, I cannot find a case law where civil damages were awarded when the DEFENDER acted appropriately under the CRIMINAL rules and laws of self defense engagement.
I asked their chatbot if they offer civil liability protection. Their response: "While our service does provide unlimited coverage for all legal fees for criminal and civil suits, we do not cover civil damages.This means that if you were to lose a civil trial, any awarded amount to the opposing party that you would need to pay is not included in our coverage."
Can you please provide the link and quote from their website. I do not see anything offering it as an add-on. All I see is the quote and link that I provided: "We are not insurance therefore, we do not offer coverage for civil liability." (https://protectwithbear.com/pages/ccw-insurance)
Please see my earlier posts. I think it will answer your question. I am former LEO and have been around this business many years. Too many folks get caught up in the civil award part of it which to my knowledge never happens if your "criminal statute" actions were proper. I would check with my insurance agent to see if there is an exclusion to paying civil damages for such an incident. You might be surprised,
Many years??? The statutes in most states that protect one from civil liability in the case of self-defense are relatively recent and, in many cases., still evolving.
I stand by the comments I made in one post that (1) most of these companies are run by former "insurance salesmen" (with all the negativity that implies) who found greener pastures with "greener" prey, (2) it is wise to be wary of wolves in sheep's clothing or companies that use Christianity as an advertising gimmick (also see Matthew 6:1).
Frankly, Ken, some of your comments are deceptive and others have attempted to skirt around the issue. DOES RTB PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR A CIVIL LIABILITY JUDGEMENT OR NOT? Yes or No?
Further, Keith's ignorance or foolishness regarding this issue has made me question the reliability of his website advice.
I will disregard your remarks about deceptive comments. RTB DOES NOT PAY damages for a civil judgement against a person who defended themself.
RTB will vigorously defend your case even to higher courts on appeal, if necessary. My point is, that your actions in the JUSTIFIED LEGAL DEFENSE of yourself most likely had some defects and YOUR action led to an award of damages. That said, it's likely that you have been convicted of your actions. I messaged you to call me about the RTB rep who gave you erroneous information. I am happy to set the record straight, but if you want to promote your chosen choice of legal defense, have at it.
Just to be clear, it seems like the responses to my objection started off as "yes, RtB does cover civil liability", then shifted to "it's OK to disagree, and just be glad that RtB is Christ-focused," . . . and now have changed to admitting that that they don't provide civil liability coverage, but saying to just not worry about civil damages. I agree that if someone has a criminal conviction, the civil judgement might a secondary concern for some . . . but for those with spouses and children, a civil judgement is a major concern, and having coverage for that event is very important to those people. I've mentioned several times now that RtB's website clearly states: "We are not insurance therefore, we do not offer coverage for civil liability." (https://protectwithbear.com/pages/ccw-insurance).
If you are now admitting that they don't provide civil liability coverage, then that is a very important piece of information that people should have when making an informed decision. If someone decides that they don't care about that coverage, then fine. But I don't think it's responsible to act like it's so unimportant that it's not work mentioning or considering. To myself, and many others, that coverage is an extremely important thing to consider. I pray that you and Keith will consider making this clear to readers / followers. Thank you.
CIVIL LIABILITY REPRESENTATION! How much clearer does it have to be stated? That is what RTB provides. RTB is NOT an insurance company, which is a GOOD THING. It is amazing to me that not only on this forum, but elsewhere, armed citizens pass right over the CRIMINAL component of a self defense incident, and focus on losing their assets. If you lose your LIBERTY, that seems like a big loss to me.
I don't think anyone in these comments is underestimating the need for criminal defense coverage. We would rightly reject any plans that didn't include that. But we also see the very important need for civil liability coverage, and are thankful that full-service solutions like CCW Safe exist, which include that as well. The issue isn't with you or RTB stating that they provide civil liability representation . . . but the concern is that the difference between civil defense expense coverage and civil liability judgement coverage was not explained in the article, and the potential importance of civil liability judgement coverage was not presented . . . which could lead many readers / followers who trust you and Keith to take your recommendation without making a properly informed decision that includes valuable information. Even including a note somewhere in the article to the effect of, "While RTB is our recommendation, it is worth noting that their plans do not include coverage for civil liability judgements. If you are interested in that coverage, you might consider the Ultimate Plan from CCW Safe." . . . would be a responsible addition. My desire with these comments isn't to disparage you or your work on this project. My concern is for men and women that have families and that serve on church security teams, and could potentially find themselves in jail AND their families' bankrupt because thought they had the best church security insurance, and didn't realize that it doesn't cover them against civil liability judgements. Please pray about this and inform your readers / followers accordingly. Thank you brother.
So, now your phrase is "civil liability representation" instead of "civil liability." HUGE DIFFERENCE. Lev 19:11 - ... You must not lie or deceive one another.
great review Keith. I have been looking at this stuff for so long it seems. Comparing everything down to the detail of coverage can be mind boggling.
We had a a bit of an overview with Armed Citizen Legal Defense yesterday. The one thing that was off putting to me about them is this scenario: S has hit the fan, you call their hotline, someone picks up and they hear your side of the story...but no action is taken until their "board" convenes and THEY decide that it was a righteous shoot, etc. meanwhile you're sitting in jail, maybe you're charged maybe you're not. Then THEY decide whether or not to take the case on. Doesn't sound much like self defense protection to me. Sounds pretty similar to the kind of behavior we hear coming from other "providers" of this sort of service. i understand no one wants to lose as case, but if you advertise yourself as a service that someone PAYS for then, dern it...you better step up and do your job. If not then I call it fraud.
ACLDN, like any other 'protection' coverage, has a duty before paying money to assess that it is in fact a lawful justified self-defense action. That's prudent.
That you want an immediate payout before an assessment is foolish. It's not fraudulent to require an assessment. That's how they stay in business.
Your argument is flawed, without merit, and seriously lacking in common business and legal sense.
You're looking to ACLDN to provide something they don't pretend to provide. They make no pretense about covering things you WANT them to cover for such a low fee. I look at ACLDN as an adjunct to my policy with CCW SAFE which covers criminal defense and civil defense and liability. Frankly, it sounds like you want a Cadillac for a Volkswagen price. If you want coverage that's reliable and complete, you will have to pay for that up front. If your goal is to save money up front, don't act surprised or upset when the coverage isn't what you hoped for. That's a leftist vision of the USA - "Let someone else pay the price while I enjoy the benefit"
Please demonstrate to me where I said ANYTHING about COST? I wrote, "I understand no one wants to lose a case, but if you advertise yourself as a service that someone PAYS for then, dern it...you better step up and do your job." This is applicable to ANY service out there.
We all have to do our own due diligence in these matters and make choices on what's best for ourselves. I simply stated facts as I have discovered them.
Your attacking my viewpoint, based on facts, being communist is, in fact, a communist viewpoint/tactic- "see it my way or else". Not playing the emoting game.
I agree with you. You're pointing out legitimate concerns that should be addressed, rather be criticized for having asked them. Appreciate your service to our country.
"...that someone PAYS for..."
If you read and comprehend what ACLDN says on their web site, you would understand how and why they differ from the other types of "protection" products.
The discussion is really irrelevant to me. Different people have different risk levels that they are willing to accept based on their circumstance. Acdl doesnt fall into my risk acceptance level circumstances. I didn't say they are necessarily bad, just not for me. Not playing the emoting game again.
I use Armed Citizen Legal Defense Network for our churches coverage. I live in NY, and their coverage for us seems reasonable. I haven't had to use them but they are proactive in helping answer questions or concerns about them
ACDLN - GREAT PEOPLE! Also recommend taking Ayoob's MAG-40 class
And the MAG-80. AND whatever tactical classes you can find. Firearms Academy of Seattle is excellent, and is one of the venues Mas uses for his classes.
Marty and Gila are ACDLN board members and are top notch folks (as are all the ACDLN board members).
Might want to check the legality of your coverage in NY. That state severely restricts legal defense for self defense protection. USCCA, US LAW SHIELD, and others are prohibited by the laws of NY
Of course they are being the cradle of 21st century tyranny.
Great information Brother!!! Blessings 🙏🏽
Great article thanks for all you do! For those of you stuck in Washington, check out US Law Shield. The insurance commissioner let USLS back in after they complied with all state requirements and got their reps certified as insurance agents. No caps, $10.95/month, and it worked great for Jack Wilson in TX.
Insurance is what you don't want. If it is backed by INSURANCE, you might want to reconsider
It's not that someone might not want insurance. It's that it's illegal to provide insurance for illegal acts. Hence, none of these products is designed as or marketed as insurance, but people (consumers) are often loose with their language or don't really understand that it's not insurance.
Keith - I strongly disagree with your conclusion regarding CCW "insurance". I am a private citizen and a volunteer church security team member. Because I have substantial liability exposure and assets, I carefully examined policies from each of the companies listed and spoke with representatives (and sometimes the owners) of CCW Safe, USCCA, Right to Bear, and US Law Shield.
My criteria include many of the factors you listed. However, at the end of the day, the MOST important factor was how I will I fare if I am involved in a self-defense incident and face civil and/or criminal prosecution. In large part, this depends on the coverage afforded by the company and the reliability of the company.
While the cost of coverage may seem to be a significant factor a priori, it is of little or no concern when actually faced with such prosecution. Indeed, the phrase, “penny wise,, but pound foolish” comes to mind.
What is truly important to someone facing prosecution is the coverage afforded and your examination should have compared policies once the available and preferred add-ons were added in, e.g. church volunteer options, criminal and civil defense, civil liability, bail, etc. Your statement that you either gave less attention or disregarded policy add-ons is a “head in the sand” approach and one that ignores the reality that most people don’t need or want coverage as a church security volunteer.
CCW SAFE is the clear winner if one selects the ULTIMATE plan which covers activities as a church security volunteer. CCW SAFE also provides coverage for civil LIABILITY in addition to civil DEFENSE. NOTE: Many people don’t recognize that LIABILITY (the amount you will have to pay the plaintiff if you lose a civil suit) is different that DEFENSE (the legal/attorney fees). Indeed, when Right to Bear presented their coverage to our church security team, the representative apparently didn’t understand this and stated at least twice that civil liability was covered until it was pointed out to him that there is a difference and the policy doesn’t include liability coverage!
In my experience, there is no such thing as a “Christian” company. There are Christians (or at least people who profess to be Christians. Unfortunately, I have been swindled more by companies openly advertising themselves as being a “Christian company” than by other companies (including companies run by Christians who act out their faith rather than use it as an advertising gimmick). I think the Bible speaks to this.
A truly informed and serious person will also STRONGLY consider taking Massad Ayoob’s MAG-40 class and joining Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network (the principals exemplify their Christian faith by their actions and demonstrated concern for their students and members). Having the knowledge of the legal aspects of self-defense lessens the likelihood that, faced with a situation, one will ponder what to do and waste valuable time, or make poor decisions. The cost of MAG-40 is well worth the opportunity to learn from a pioneer in the firearms industry and a truly gracious and erudite gentleman.
I also strongly recommend Ayoob’s “Deadly Force” book as well as Andrew Branca’s “Law of Self Defense” book.
USCCA is not to be discounted – while there have been some reliability issues, one can get coverage for a year and take advantage of their educational features.
IMHO Attorneys on Retainer are more interested in cutting down the competition than demonstrating the good they can do.
It’s OK to disagree with me Mike. I have been sued before and have been involved in civil litigation in self defense shootings. I’m sorry you had a bad engagement with a rep from Right to Bear. I am definitely not a shill for a company. I see that you are very passionate about this and we need more of that in church security. You can go with whomever you wish. I’ll keep looking at this year after year and will report back around this time next year. I knew going into this everyone would have their own opinions and that those opinions would be strongly rooted.
No problem, Keith. I enjoy your content and think this controversial issues are the ones that most need to be addressed in forums such as this. I'm more concerned with the clarity of my points that with anyone necessarily agreeing with me. It's rare to convince anyone in a forum setting, but if we clearly state our position based on facts and logic, the reader can mull things over he otherwise might not have considered and form his own opinion. For clarification: Were you sued when you were in law enforcement and covered at the expense of agency/department - there is a difference from being sued as a private citizen and being sued as a LEO. It still sucks and is a tremendous mental stress!
PS: CCW SAFE will also cover church security volunteers under a church policy from minimum of 3 members on the team (not all members need to subscribe). This is a relatively inexpensive option (maybe $275 per year).
Another extremely important note is that Right to Bear Arms plan has an add on of $4 to even get up to $100k of bond coverage where CCW Safe includes 1M bond coverage. I do not believe for a second that any bond in a most States will be under 100k. I also chose CCW Safe. They are upfront with the devil in the details where I could not find the likes on Right to Bear Arms site.
Hi Keith - can you share the comparison chart you created between the different providers?
1. Providing legal protection coverage for firearms related incidents is a lucrative business with relatively few players. Like cheese, easy money attracts rats.
2. Don't imagine for a minute that the people running these companies are doing so out of some altruistic Christian sense of duty or because they want to help you. They are in it for the money and only in a Smithies sense are they interested in helping you.
3. The ones to be especially leery of are the "former" insurance salesmen. Do you trust insurance salesmen? Do you trust him simply because he found easier prey and now wears sheep's clothing?
4. Is your primary concern is the cost to you AFTER a self-defense incident (defense and liability costs) or the cost before such incident (cost of premiums)? If you primary concern is the cost of premiums, don't purchase any policy - the odds are you'll never be in a gunfight. However, if you recognize that it's not the odds, but the stakes, carefully consider the expenses you could possibly encounter if you are charged with a crime, sued in civil court, and/or loose a civil trial.
Many church (and church school) sheepdogs are retired law enforcement officers. Several police organizations including labor groups offer concealed coverage for both off duty and retired officers that can provide an added layer of legal protection and some can be economical. For example, PORAC (a California based legal/labor organization) offers CCW coverage and LDF (Legal Defense Fund) protection at very low cost. When I moved to Texas post-retirement I discovered that FOP (Federation of Police) also offers plans for off duty and retired officers.
Be sure to let your homeowner's insurance carrier know that you are interested in an all-perils "Umbrella" policy. These are usually relatively low cost addition to your homeowner's policy that offers additional protection since anyone (or their family) you may shoot, however justified, will likely sue you personally in an effort to cash in on your assets. If you own a home it is a likely target of a civil suit if you are involved in a shooting incident.
Be sure that your church's own insurance carrier, risk management folks, and legal advisors review your team's P&P's (Policies and Procedures) and ROE's so that all stakeholders are on the same page.
Blessings.
Hey Gary, I personally don’t give PORAC my money anymore. They have endorsed far right people that do not possess biblical values. They have lost their way of the old PORAC days. As for FOP, I do believe that is a better program if you are a retired police officer.
Yes, PORAC is not the organization it was during my working days. Politics, wokeness, and turning away from biblical values and teaching has ruined so many once great organizations and institutions.
Good advice!
A homeowners policy will do that? Are you sure that wouldn't have to be a rider on the policy?
In both California and now Texas my homeowner's policy added an umbrella policy to the existing policy ... perhaps it may be referred to as a "rider" but it is at a reasonable (IMHO) upcharge for the peace of mind. I did, in writing, inform the insurance co. that I was a police officer (back in the day, now retired) who carries.
Hi Ken, I am unfamiliar of what kind of rider you mentioned related with home insurance. Is it some sort of coverage for civil lawsuits for self defense at my property that can be covered by home insurance?
Thanks
Better get that in writing that they will cover it. The umbrella is to cover civil damages in dollars. If you act in self defense, that policy will not provide you immediate access to an attorney, nor will it pay for a criminal defense attorney to defend you during the criminal investigation/and charges filed against you.
This is why I have RTB
Correct. It is just to help protect your assets should you lose in civil court. It does nothing for any criminal or departmental actions that would require legal defense. That's what the other policies mentioned above are for.
I've gotta throw the BS flag at Keith's conclusions (and Ken Hardy's excuses):
Keith's initial explanation of criteria and reasons for downgrading some plans included the statement:
ITEM 1:
Popular Plans Did Not Meet the Criteria
Several popular plans failed to meet the specific needs of church security teams. I had considered naming the companies that fell short, but after receiving significant pushback from legal representatives, I chose to focus on what you should look for in a plan instead. THE AMBIGUITIES IN THESE CONTRACTS OFTEN PROTECT THE COMPANY, not you, especially when it comes to church-related self-defense incidents.
SOME PLANS DID NOT COVER YOU FOR CIVIL LAWSUITS. You have a 60% chance of getting sued after a self defense shooting AND THAT CAN BE MORE EXPENSIVE THAN THE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.
ITEM 2:
(RTB) meets all the critical criteria, offering comprehensive coverage
ITEM 3:
John Flynn stated "...from what I can tell, they are missing one critically important piece of coverage: civil liability coverage. Yes, they offer legal defense coverage for civil cases . . . but their website clearly states: "We are not insurance therefore, we do not offer coverage for civil liability.""
KG responded: "I’m not sure where you’re seeing that. It clearly states on their page that they cover civil liability."
ITEM4:
Ken Hardy: "I assure you that Keith did his homework. I helped him!"
CONCLUSSIONS BASED ON THE ABOVE:
1. There is reason to believe that Keith was either confused regarding the difference between civil liability (the monetary award) and civil defense (the cost to defend a civil suit), OR Keith was misinformed about the coverage RTB provides.
2. The fact that someone from RTB "helped him" do "his homework" in researching these plans raises a concern for bias and the possibility that someone from RTB led to such confusion.
3. As noted in ITEM #1, Keith's selection process involved concerns about AMBIGUITIES in contract terms. The shifting definitions of civil liability, civil liability defense, etc. certainly make me wonder about ambiguities Keith may have encountered while doing his homework .
4. As for RTB meeting all the criteria for COMPREHENSIVE COVERAGE, I must strongly disagree unless one stipulates that coverage for civil liability (the monetary award) is not necessary to meet the definition of "comprehensive".
Keith - I truly appreciate all you have done and continue to do for the community, but the BS flag stands and I think you need to call an audible and consider a new play. Like I indicated in my initial post, companies boasting about their Christian credentials in order to gain advantage in marketing their products/services to other Christians are like wolves in sheep's clothing. Beware of the man who boasts publicly of his Christian service.
I believe there are few posts from others doing the comparison between various ccw plans already. I am not sure what kind of legal push back Keith has received. If it is just compare the information listed in those companies website, you are just speaking out the truth. Why be concerned?
Thank you so much for your time and resources Keith. I have been researching this as well and find that it just over whelming amount of data. God bless you and UR family.
Keith,
I like what you said about Right to Bear. As a retired Attorney and the Leader of a Church Security Team, I like you, know it is important to have Insurance Coverage.
Here is my situation. I live in the best State for Freedom in America, Idaho. However, I am the leader of a Church Security Team at a church 4 miles away from my home. That church is located in Washington.
Does Right to Bear's Insurance cover someone like me who resides in a free State but worships and is the Leader of a Church Security Team in a State such as Washington?
PS did you ever get the video about the Bytna completed?
Thanks and god bless you and all church Security Team Members.
If you have traveled to Washington State, and have purchased the Multi State coverage option, you would have RTB coverage. RTB cannot sell to residents of Washington State, NJ and NY, but non residents of those states are covered in all 50 states if they have purchased the Multi State coverage
Thanks, I waned confirmation of that since half of my team lives in Idaho but worships in Washington.
Civil liability coverage (individual CCW coverage) would rise to the top in my future choices when I switch companies. I want a company that will cover this and not just attorney fees. I think this is vital in our crazy, litigious culture. This cost alone could put you in the poor house.
While I certainly appreciate the Christ-centered focus of Right to Bear . . . from what I can tell, they are missing one critically important piece of coverage: civil liability coverage. Yes, they offer legal defense coverage for civil cases . . . but their website clearly states: "We are not insurance therefore, we do not offer coverage for civil liability." (https://protectwithbear.com/pages/ccw-insurance) So the best concealed carry insurance for church security . . . is not insurance? Without civil liability coverage, if you're found guilty in a civil case, you might have avoided the legal fees, but you'll still be paying the judgement out of pocket. If I am wrong about this, I'd be glad to humbly accept the correction. But as far as I can tell, CCW Safe is the best choice, in part because of their inclusion of this coverage.
I’m not sure where you’re seeing that. It clearly states on their page that they cover civil liability.
I directly asked the online RTB rep about Civil Liability coverage. This is their response:
"While we provide unlimited coverage for legal fees associated with both civil and criminal suits, it's important to note that our service does not cover civil damages. This means that if you lose a civil trial, all your legal and court fees will be paid upfront, but any amount awarded to the opposing party that you need to pay would not be covered by us."
That's right. Y'all act like the criminal justice system will treat you fairly and your only concern is civil damages. How is that criminal representation serving you from those civil payment "Insurance" companies?
From the RTB website - chat questions: While our service does provide unlimited coverage for all legal fees for criminal and civil suits, it does not cover civil damages. So, if you were to lose your civil trial, all of your legal and court fees would still be paid upfront. However, any amount awarded to an opposing party that is to be paid by you would not be covered by Right to Bear. We hope this helps!
Thank you Keith. If that is the case, can you please provide the link, and mention how much civil liability coverage they provide? From what I can tell, they only provide civil defense costs, not liability coverage . . . which are two different things. Their website clearly states: "We are not insurance therefore, we do not offer coverage for civil liability." (https://protectwithbear.com/pages/ccw-insurance).
CCW Safe provides up to $1.5M Civil Liability Coverage, depending on the plan (https://ccwsafe.com/plans/).
John
See my posts above. Don't get hung up on civil. Your more important concern is criminal defense. A couple of organizations offer civil damage coverage at great expense. There is a reason they offer it. It's a safe bet. All of these companies being discussed are all FOR PROFIT, and the civil award aspect is a safe bet for them, and they know that. I know this: RTB is the only God centered company.
Flynn makes good point. Further, in criminal case, guilt must be proven “beyond a reasonable doubt”. In civil case, it’s preponderance of evidence (50% plus 1). If it was accidental discharge, there is no self-defense liability waiver for the civil trial if you are found not guilty in criminal trial. When someone says, “Don’t worry”, wise people worry.
OJ was famously convicted in a civil case, but not a criminal case. I agree that if someone has a criminal conviction, the civil judgement might a secondary concern for some . . . but for those with spouses and children, a civil judgement is a major concern, and having coverage for that event is very important to those people. I've mentioned several times now that RtB's website clearly states: "We are not insurance therefore, we do not offer coverage for civil liability." (https://protectwithbear.com/pages/ccw-insurance).
If they do, in fact, provide civil liability coverage, it should be easy for you or Keith to provide a link to that information, and a statement of how much coverage they provide. But it seems like all of the responses so far have either been "it's OK to disagree" or "they provide civil defense coverage" . . . neither of which addresses the issue. If you are now admitting that they don't provide civil liability coverage, then that is a very important piece of information that people should have when making an informed decision. If someone decides that they don't care about that coverage, then fine. But I don't think it's responsible to act like it's so unimportant that it's not work mentioning or considering. To myself, and many others, that coverage is an extremely important thing to consider. I pray that you and Keith will consider making this clear to readers / followers. Thank you.
KEITH - Please clarity what you think "cover civil liability" means. Do you think it means (a) they pay the attorney (defense) costs for a civil trial, or (b) they pay to civil liability (monetary award) that you would have to pay to the plaintiff, or (c) both a & b.
I can answer for him. Pays for civil representation. That's it. No civil damages are paid. No one ever implied that until someone convoluted the discussion.
1. Keith is a big boy and can speak for himself. Your efforts at shielding him from addressing this question sound like you are trying to keep him in the dark. Frankly, your frantic efforts on this forum have solidified my distrust in Right to Bear.
2. I did not ask what RTB covers or doesn't cover. I asked Keith what his understanding regarding "defense" or "attorney" costs and the "liability" or "monetary" award. His perception (or misperception) may be different than reality and may be at the root of our disagreement.
I am not shielding Keith. These are not my opinions. I have a lot of knowledge in this arena and was attempting to clarify your concerns, which it appears, is not your intention.
How is the ‘cover civil liability’ same as ‘pays for civil representation’?
Well since it doesn't define limits in dollars of civil liability, you can take that as civil representation.
AGREE 100% with CCW SAFE. So does Ryan Cleckner - former US Army Ranger and current attorney specializing in firearms issues - who has reviewed all these companies.
John
If you have a judgement against you in a self defense incident, your bigger worry is that you likely have been convicted of improper action in self defense. And if you don't have IMMEDIATE, PROACTIVE, EXPERIENCED, and WELL PAID CRIMINAL DEFENSE, all the civil liability pay out is worth nothing. As I noted before, to this point in time, I cannot find a case law where civil damages were awarded when the DEFENDER acted appropriately under the CRIMINAL rules and laws of self defense engagement.
They do have civil liability. It's an add on.
I asked their chatbot if they offer civil liability protection. Their response: "While our service does provide unlimited coverage for all legal fees for criminal and civil suits, we do not cover civil damages.This means that if you were to lose a civil trial, any awarded amount to the opposing party that you would need to pay is not included in our coverage."
Can you please provide the link and quote from their website. I do not see anything offering it as an add-on. All I see is the quote and link that I provided: "We are not insurance therefore, we do not offer coverage for civil liability." (https://protectwithbear.com/pages/ccw-insurance)
John
Please see my earlier posts. I think it will answer your question. I am former LEO and have been around this business many years. Too many folks get caught up in the civil award part of it which to my knowledge never happens if your "criminal statute" actions were proper. I would check with my insurance agent to see if there is an exclusion to paying civil damages for such an incident. You might be surprised,
Many years??? The statutes in most states that protect one from civil liability in the case of self-defense are relatively recent and, in many cases., still evolving.
I stand by the comments I made in one post that (1) most of these companies are run by former "insurance salesmen" (with all the negativity that implies) who found greener pastures with "greener" prey, (2) it is wise to be wary of wolves in sheep's clothing or companies that use Christianity as an advertising gimmick (also see Matthew 6:1).
Frankly, Ken, some of your comments are deceptive and others have attempted to skirt around the issue. DOES RTB PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR A CIVIL LIABILITY JUDGEMENT OR NOT? Yes or No?
Further, Keith's ignorance or foolishness regarding this issue has made me question the reliability of his website advice.
Mike,
I will disregard your remarks about deceptive comments. RTB DOES NOT PAY damages for a civil judgement against a person who defended themself.
RTB will vigorously defend your case even to higher courts on appeal, if necessary. My point is, that your actions in the JUSTIFIED LEGAL DEFENSE of yourself most likely had some defects and YOUR action led to an award of damages. That said, it's likely that you have been convicted of your actions. I messaged you to call me about the RTB rep who gave you erroneous information. I am happy to set the record straight, but if you want to promote your chosen choice of legal defense, have at it.
Ken
Just to be clear, it seems like the responses to my objection started off as "yes, RtB does cover civil liability", then shifted to "it's OK to disagree, and just be glad that RtB is Christ-focused," . . . and now have changed to admitting that that they don't provide civil liability coverage, but saying to just not worry about civil damages. I agree that if someone has a criminal conviction, the civil judgement might a secondary concern for some . . . but for those with spouses and children, a civil judgement is a major concern, and having coverage for that event is very important to those people. I've mentioned several times now that RtB's website clearly states: "We are not insurance therefore, we do not offer coverage for civil liability." (https://protectwithbear.com/pages/ccw-insurance).
If you are now admitting that they don't provide civil liability coverage, then that is a very important piece of information that people should have when making an informed decision. If someone decides that they don't care about that coverage, then fine. But I don't think it's responsible to act like it's so unimportant that it's not work mentioning or considering. To myself, and many others, that coverage is an extremely important thing to consider. I pray that you and Keith will consider making this clear to readers / followers. Thank you.
CIVIL LIABILITY REPRESENTATION! How much clearer does it have to be stated? That is what RTB provides. RTB is NOT an insurance company, which is a GOOD THING. It is amazing to me that not only on this forum, but elsewhere, armed citizens pass right over the CRIMINAL component of a self defense incident, and focus on losing their assets. If you lose your LIBERTY, that seems like a big loss to me.
Ken,
I don't think anyone in these comments is underestimating the need for criminal defense coverage. We would rightly reject any plans that didn't include that. But we also see the very important need for civil liability coverage, and are thankful that full-service solutions like CCW Safe exist, which include that as well. The issue isn't with you or RTB stating that they provide civil liability representation . . . but the concern is that the difference between civil defense expense coverage and civil liability judgement coverage was not explained in the article, and the potential importance of civil liability judgement coverage was not presented . . . which could lead many readers / followers who trust you and Keith to take your recommendation without making a properly informed decision that includes valuable information. Even including a note somewhere in the article to the effect of, "While RTB is our recommendation, it is worth noting that their plans do not include coverage for civil liability judgements. If you are interested in that coverage, you might consider the Ultimate Plan from CCW Safe." . . . would be a responsible addition. My desire with these comments isn't to disparage you or your work on this project. My concern is for men and women that have families and that serve on church security teams, and could potentially find themselves in jail AND their families' bankrupt because thought they had the best church security insurance, and didn't realize that it doesn't cover them against civil liability judgements. Please pray about this and inform your readers / followers accordingly. Thank you brother.
So, now your phrase is "civil liability representation" instead of "civil liability." HUGE DIFFERENCE. Lev 19:11 - ... You must not lie or deceive one another.
I expected better from Keith, but what else did anyone expect from an insurance salesman who mocks God by using his as an advertising gimmick.
Mike,
Do you work for a legal defense company?
Their join page doesn’t work properly… is a loop to sign in as if you have an account!!!
Clear your cache on your web browser and try again. It is working for me.
Contacted them and joined… tks…. Sending information to several church safety teams!!
Great info!
I'm calling Right To Bear today!
Thanks for your dedication to supporting Christian Churchs!
Great job researching thsi for all of us Keith - I did end up going with Right To Bear after all. Thank you!