Brandon B

I guess I was thinking the whole point is for the courts to determine if it was an SD event or not. If you get charged with something your defense is SD. So isn't the decision of guilt by these companies premature? It is a guilty before proven innocent model. I get you don't want to insure bad guys from just shooting people willy nilly and then having them claim SD, but it seems like its a ton of risk for the customer to be paying all this money just to have someone decided, "Nah, not good enough."

So if I'm looking at it right, ACLDN is a financial support group you can use to help pay for your attorney of choice. I notice right in the first paragraph you could fall under the same shortcomings as the insurance companies, when it says "...and after an assessment that your incident constituted a legitimate act of self defense, the Network will work with you and your attorney (paid for by the Network), to assure the best possible legal defense." This sounds like even they look at the case and only offer financial assistance if THEY decide it was SD. Isn't this what the trial is about? I am curious what ya'll think about that Attorney's on Retainer. It looks like its more of a law firm that uses the large pool of membership to pay for cases. But it looks like a law firm that specializes in SD cases. Thanks for the feedback guys.

Hey all, Lately, there have been some discussions floating around the internet discussing the denial of service by self defense insurance companies. I know USCCA was most recently in that hot seat. I was wondering if anyone has any thoughts on CCW Safe. I heard the head attorney for Attorneys on Retainer go over their contract and it sounds like there are just as many options for CCW Safe to deny you coverage. This seems a bit scary since if you did ever have to defend yourself, then defend yourself in court, most likely you'll be fighting some kind of criminal charge in the court case, that's where they decide if it was a self defense act. We'll, if you're being charged, does that give CCW Safe the option to not cover you? Seems like the Attorneys on Retainer don't have this problem. Or if you're carrying somewhere a school activity is going on, elsewhere in the park you're at, and you're not aware, technically you shouldn't be carrying at all, would CCW Safe deny coverage, since technically you weren't allowed to carry, it looks like that's what their contact says. I'd be curious to see if anyone has any opinions about the potential for denial of service vs something like Attorneys on Retainer, which is an actual law firm, not insurance company. Or is all the Attorney on Retainer stuff just meant to generate fear of the insurance companies meant to drive business to them?

So I know this is an old thread, but I'm hoping we'll get some new replies. I'm hoping to get some good input on this since I'm torn on the subject. I have two old guns I'm selling and with that money I can do two things: 1) get a S&W Performance Center M&P9 optic ready or 2) buy parts to mod my Sig P320 compact, I'm thinking new frame, threaded barrel and a comp, maybe a new slide. I can't decide which way to go, if I get the M&P I'll have a new gun I may like a lot, and if I don't I'll still have my P320 that I do like a lot. If I mod the Sig, what happens if I don't like it, what are the odds I don't like it. And if I don't, then I just wasted a bunch of money and will have a box of parts. I'm brand new to the mod game and really don't know which way to go. Since I haven't shot any performance guns before I can't even say what the difference is between a modified P320 and a non-modified P320. Any thoughts or advice would be very greatly appreciated.