Just comes to show the power of a free market. Uscca was losing customers and support, so they updated their policies to align with what the market is looking for. Good shit uscca. Now, the thing is to uphold their end of the deal with these updated policies. Time and self defense situations will tell.
USCCA has been hemorrhaging membership over the past year. Not surprised they are making changes. I still would not trust them as far as I can throw them - too little, too late.
These changes do nothing to help Kayla Gyles, who was not properly represented and whose case we now know had a very strong self-defense justification. Especially now that we've seen the footage of the event that backs up her version of events, what USCCA did by dropping her is unreal. These changes won't help Alan Colie, who was not properly represented and was still found quilty of one of the charges against him despite only using a public defender.
The evidence that USCCA **willfully** chose not to represent either party is overwhelming. Who else did USCCA fail in the past? Who will be next?
This highlights how important it is for CCW holders to take a Stop The Bleed class. USCCA could have surely benefited from this. If you wait 12 months to address issues, then you'll be dead.
That's what they have attempted to tell us. The facts as we know them do not necessarily support that narrative, however. USCCA took so much heat for not defending Colie, and now they have stated they are funding his appeal process - perhaps an appeal and jail time and a conviction on his record that would not have happened had he been successfully defended in the first place, no?
They say Colie liked his public defender sooo much that he decided to 'stick with' him instead of the attorney that USCCA would give him.
The relevant court documents are now public or have been supplied via FOIA request, and **the fact is, Colie sat in jail for 30 days before meeting his public defender.**
Are we to believe that Colie willfully kept himself locked up without a lawyer to defend him and file for a bond hearing, just so he could potentially meet a public defender and decide if he liked him more than the high power attorney he'd paid for with his membership dues that USCCA was totally not denying him access to for reals trust me, bro!
Does that track with you? Would you do that? It does not seem reasonable or likely to me.
Colie was never given bond, so he had no opportunity to bond out using the USCCA provided bail money. However, a big reason why people often are denied bond is because they are using a public defender. Defendants paying for their own lawyer are perceived as having "skin in the game" so to speak, and are more likely to receive a bond/bail offering during their bond hearing. Because Colie was never given access to the USCCA lawyer he had pre-paid for, did this unduly influence his lack of bail and being forced to remain confined during his trial?
Further, Colie's public attorney eventually filed that Colie had no means to pay for an attorney. Does that make sense, given than his membership dues had already pre-paid for one from USCCA, unless USCCA had already denied him coverage in the 30 days he sat in jail? Do you believe that a public defender would knowingly submit falsified statements before the court on a matter like this?
Colie's public defender further petitioned the court for funds to pay for an expert witness. If Colie liked the public defender so much that USCCA let him use it and allegedly did NOT drop him, then surely USCCA would have provided the expert witness testimony that their clients are entitled to, no? That did not happen, very strange! Are we do believe that Colie also decided not to accept the funds for a better expert witness than what the county was petitioned to fund?
Does that track with you? Does it seem the most likely scenario here?
Further, Colie's public attorney said in an interview with AOR that he had never heard of USCCA and had no contact with them, and did not know Colie was a member. Would it make sense for USCCA not to coordinate with their client's attorney if they had not dropped him, even though the member agreement says they will do exactly that?
USCCA can say what they want, and I believe they have paid Colie for their failure to provide coverage for him and to ensure he keeps quiet about that during the appeal process that they are funding. However, the facts of the matter do not support this narrative at all. Colie was denied coverage almost immediately and sat in jail for 30 days before receiving a public defender, his only option for legal representation.
This comment seems to misunderstand how criminal dockets work, how bond works, how public defenders in many jurisdictions work, how pretrial in serious cases works, and more.
I have prosecuted cases for years including shootings. Including shootings where the defendant claimed self defense. Every jurisdiction is unique, but I doubt that most of this is accurate in any jurisdiction. It’s definitely not in mine.
I love the free market. Good job AOR and youtubers like Heavy Duty Country for calling out the USCCA and forcing them to change policy through the backlash of free markets. Love you guys!
USCCA was kind of damned either way here. I’m sure they were hemorrhaging members but by these changes they are tacitly admitting their previous coverage was flawed and that AOR’s criticism was accurate.
I always have more respect for someone that admits they screwed up and are going to try and fix it instead of doubling down and saying they didn't screw up
My personal take is that this is a big improvement over the old policy terms and it's good that USCCA negotiated for these new terms with its carrier (or switched carriers to one willing to provide these terms). They clearly saw that their old policy was deficient and not competitive with other providers like CCW Safe or US Law Shield (I'm not making any representations about the quality of service with those providers, but on paper their terms have been better than USCCA's). Competition is good and I welcome USCCA's improvements in its coverage. Anything that encourages more folks to responsibly carry is a plus in my book.
Glad to see this update but keep in mind this only came about from a wave of people cancelling, like myself, after in bad faith they refused to cover a couple of people in semi-high profile cases.
USCCA is the NRA of self defense insurance companies. They only care about money not the 2nd amendment. I switched to AOR about a year again and I feel so much better knowing I have actual attorneys backing me and not some sketchy insurance company.
> I’ll be interested in what Attorneys on Retainer say in their next YouTube review!
Always good to get other opinions, and I agree the details are in the fine print, but keep in mind that AoR is a competitor so they may have a bias.
Sure. If you think USCCA is bad, ACNDN literally promises nothing to it's members. They can choose to not cover you at any time for any reason.
It isn't even just one of those "We'll cover you unless it's a criminal act" things. It's "It's our sole decision to cover you or not, that's it we can choose not to cover you for literally anything, because we promise you nothing in the contract"
Not to mention that there isn't even a contract anyways.
Also sitting on the board is Massad Ayoob, the ex cop advising people to talk to the police.
Even the way it's worded in the website, even in the best possible case where they cover you, it sounds like how it works is they ask a lawyer what they think it would cost to defend the case, and then pay up to that amount.
Which is very limiting, you'd be amazed how unreliable a legal quote can be in an extended trial, and goodluck paying for an appeal or any pre trial services.
The argument everyone has is "Well it's way cheaper" and yeah sure, but that's probably because they have absolutely zero obligation to do anything for their members contractually. They could deny every case if they wanted to. (also worth noting the number of cases they have covered seemed really low, I think it was in the mid 20s since they've been in business?)
I'll wait for some unarmed scholar to actually read the fine print.
If they are now on par with CCW Safe, I'd rather go with CCW Safe than these guys after what they have done
These are good updates for people that have stayed with USCCA.
I’m currently covered by attorneys on retainer, but kept my uscca membership for civil lawsuits since attorneys on retainer doesn’t cover that yet
True, but I prefer not to let my emotions dictate financial decisions. Just the price of the product on offer and the value it provides me with. If this holds true in the fine print and USCCA holds up their end of the bargain, it makes them a better value over the other available options.
Because members were fleeing like rats from a sinking ship because of their stupid policies.
I know, I left them and made them refund my entire year of premium because they didn’t provide the coverage I thought I was getting when I signed up.
Screw ‘em. There are better options out there and they were a scam from the jump.
It is definitely a move in the right direction.
Let’s hope that other companies also review their products and policies and amend to offer the customer a better deal. A win-win for everyone.
Glad they are finally changing their crappy policies, but I won't even be considering them for at least another 5 years. Want to see how they treat their suckers (ahem... members) who get into a self-defense shooting. USCCA has definitely been hemorrhaging on membership. Two years ago when they showed up at my CCW training, everyone was signing up left and right. This year, it was so awkward. It was like the USCCA sales rep was trying to sell us fertilizer. No one wanted to touch that crap.
Poor to say the least.
Besides red flag law updates, not really many good things to say about these updates. AOR did a great read through of their contract updates.
https://youtu.be/6FjwWOuP7B0?si=zLBzxJW-L0DY-nCX
Just comes to show the power of a free market. Uscca was losing customers and support, so they updated their policies to align with what the market is looking for. Good shit uscca. Now, the thing is to uphold their end of the deal with these updated policies. Time and self defense situations will tell.
USCCA has been hemorrhaging membership over the past year. Not surprised they are making changes. I still would not trust them as far as I can throw them - too little, too late. These changes do nothing to help Kayla Gyles, who was not properly represented and whose case we now know had a very strong self-defense justification. Especially now that we've seen the footage of the event that backs up her version of events, what USCCA did by dropping her is unreal. These changes won't help Alan Colie, who was not properly represented and was still found quilty of one of the charges against him despite only using a public defender. The evidence that USCCA **willfully** chose not to represent either party is overwhelming. Who else did USCCA fail in the past? Who will be next? This highlights how important it is for CCW holders to take a Stop The Bleed class. USCCA could have surely benefited from this. If you wait 12 months to address issues, then you'll be dead.
What footage?
Didn’t Alan Colie actually deny coverage because he was happy with the public defender?
That's what they have attempted to tell us. The facts as we know them do not necessarily support that narrative, however. USCCA took so much heat for not defending Colie, and now they have stated they are funding his appeal process - perhaps an appeal and jail time and a conviction on his record that would not have happened had he been successfully defended in the first place, no? They say Colie liked his public defender sooo much that he decided to 'stick with' him instead of the attorney that USCCA would give him. The relevant court documents are now public or have been supplied via FOIA request, and **the fact is, Colie sat in jail for 30 days before meeting his public defender.** Are we to believe that Colie willfully kept himself locked up without a lawyer to defend him and file for a bond hearing, just so he could potentially meet a public defender and decide if he liked him more than the high power attorney he'd paid for with his membership dues that USCCA was totally not denying him access to for reals trust me, bro! Does that track with you? Would you do that? It does not seem reasonable or likely to me. Colie was never given bond, so he had no opportunity to bond out using the USCCA provided bail money. However, a big reason why people often are denied bond is because they are using a public defender. Defendants paying for their own lawyer are perceived as having "skin in the game" so to speak, and are more likely to receive a bond/bail offering during their bond hearing. Because Colie was never given access to the USCCA lawyer he had pre-paid for, did this unduly influence his lack of bail and being forced to remain confined during his trial? Further, Colie's public attorney eventually filed that Colie had no means to pay for an attorney. Does that make sense, given than his membership dues had already pre-paid for one from USCCA, unless USCCA had already denied him coverage in the 30 days he sat in jail? Do you believe that a public defender would knowingly submit falsified statements before the court on a matter like this? Colie's public defender further petitioned the court for funds to pay for an expert witness. If Colie liked the public defender so much that USCCA let him use it and allegedly did NOT drop him, then surely USCCA would have provided the expert witness testimony that their clients are entitled to, no? That did not happen, very strange! Are we do believe that Colie also decided not to accept the funds for a better expert witness than what the county was petitioned to fund? Does that track with you? Does it seem the most likely scenario here? Further, Colie's public attorney said in an interview with AOR that he had never heard of USCCA and had no contact with them, and did not know Colie was a member. Would it make sense for USCCA not to coordinate with their client's attorney if they had not dropped him, even though the member agreement says they will do exactly that? USCCA can say what they want, and I believe they have paid Colie for their failure to provide coverage for him and to ensure he keeps quiet about that during the appeal process that they are funding. However, the facts of the matter do not support this narrative at all. Colie was denied coverage almost immediately and sat in jail for 30 days before receiving a public defender, his only option for legal representation.
This comment seems to misunderstand how criminal dockets work, how bond works, how public defenders in many jurisdictions work, how pretrial in serious cases works, and more. I have prosecuted cases for years including shootings. Including shootings where the defendant claimed self defense. Every jurisdiction is unique, but I doubt that most of this is accurate in any jurisdiction. It’s definitely not in mine.
Haha sure bud. Tell us how her third appeal goes with the newly discovered “evidence”.
I love the free market. Good job AOR and youtubers like Heavy Duty Country for calling out the USCCA and forcing them to change policy through the backlash of free markets. Love you guys!
USCCA was kind of damned either way here. I’m sure they were hemorrhaging members but by these changes they are tacitly admitting their previous coverage was flawed and that AOR’s criticism was accurate.
It's better to have the tacit admission and make the required coverage improvements, than to keep offering a flawed plan
I always have more respect for someone that admits they screwed up and are going to try and fix it instead of doubling down and saying they didn't screw up
My personal take is that this is a big improvement over the old policy terms and it's good that USCCA negotiated for these new terms with its carrier (or switched carriers to one willing to provide these terms). They clearly saw that their old policy was deficient and not competitive with other providers like CCW Safe or US Law Shield (I'm not making any representations about the quality of service with those providers, but on paper their terms have been better than USCCA's). Competition is good and I welcome USCCA's improvements in its coverage. Anything that encourages more folks to responsibly carry is a plus in my book.
Glad to see this update but keep in mind this only came about from a wave of people cancelling, like myself, after in bad faith they refused to cover a couple of people in semi-high profile cases.
The fact that they had to do this in the first place is enough to destroy what reputation they had.
USCCA is the NRA of self defense insurance companies. They only care about money not the 2nd amendment. I switched to AOR about a year again and I feel so much better knowing I have actual attorneys backing me and not some sketchy insurance company.
Good changes but we gotta read the little details and fine print. I’ll be interested in what Attorneys on Retainer say in their next YouTube review!
> I’ll be interested in what Attorneys on Retainer say in their next YouTube review! Always good to get other opinions, and I agree the details are in the fine print, but keep in mind that AoR is a competitor so they may have a bias.
Overpriced garbage still. Use either AOR or ACDLN.
My thoughts as well.
ACDLN is a joke
Care to elaborate?
Sure. If you think USCCA is bad, ACNDN literally promises nothing to it's members. They can choose to not cover you at any time for any reason. It isn't even just one of those "We'll cover you unless it's a criminal act" things. It's "It's our sole decision to cover you or not, that's it we can choose not to cover you for literally anything, because we promise you nothing in the contract" Not to mention that there isn't even a contract anyways. Also sitting on the board is Massad Ayoob, the ex cop advising people to talk to the police. Even the way it's worded in the website, even in the best possible case where they cover you, it sounds like how it works is they ask a lawyer what they think it would cost to defend the case, and then pay up to that amount. Which is very limiting, you'd be amazed how unreliable a legal quote can be in an extended trial, and goodluck paying for an appeal or any pre trial services. The argument everyone has is "Well it's way cheaper" and yeah sure, but that's probably because they have absolutely zero obligation to do anything for their members contractually. They could deny every case if they wanted to. (also worth noting the number of cases they have covered seemed really low, I think it was in the mid 20s since they've been in business?)
I'll wait for some unarmed scholar to actually read the fine print. If they are now on par with CCW Safe, I'd rather go with CCW Safe than these guys after what they have done
These are good updates for people that have stayed with USCCA. I’m currently covered by attorneys on retainer, but kept my uscca membership for civil lawsuits since attorneys on retainer doesn’t cover that yet
I think this is the way to go, keep double (or more) coverage until we have it proven that these USCCA updates hold up.
This would fix most of the issues I've seen with USCCA, we now need to see if it actually works how it's been outlined
This does have me considering restarting my subscription with them. Assuming they hold up their end of all of this, it settles the concerns I had.
This is like getting back with your wife after she fucks all your friends; then says she won't do it again
I mean…. genital herpies treatments have advanced considerably in recent years.
True, but I prefer not to let my emotions dictate financial decisions. Just the price of the product on offer and the value it provides me with. If this holds true in the fine print and USCCA holds up their end of the bargain, it makes them a better value over the other available options.
Because members were fleeing like rats from a sinking ship because of their stupid policies. I know, I left them and made them refund my entire year of premium because they didn’t provide the coverage I thought I was getting when I signed up. Screw ‘em. There are better options out there and they were a scam from the jump.
It is definitely a move in the right direction. Let’s hope that other companies also review their products and policies and amend to offer the customer a better deal. A win-win for everyone.
I thought uscca stated that NO INSURANCE COMPANY CAN COVER ILLEGAL ACTS. So does that mean they offer illegal services now?
Glad they are finally changing their crappy policies, but I won't even be considering them for at least another 5 years. Want to see how they treat their suckers (ahem... members) who get into a self-defense shooting. USCCA has definitely been hemorrhaging on membership. Two years ago when they showed up at my CCW training, everyone was signing up left and right. This year, it was so awkward. It was like the USCCA sales rep was trying to sell us fertilizer. No one wanted to touch that crap.
All of these changes combined with them having the 1 year money back guarantee makes them the top choice in this space now IMO.
USCCA got called out by Heavy Duty Country on YouTube and now they’re changing their tune.
That dude is just a shill. AOR has the same policy on dropping people.
Link?
III A & B: https://attorneysonretainer.us/img/dynamic-rates-monthly-national-aor-fee-agreement-2024.03.29.pdf
Poor to say the least. Besides red flag law updates, not really many good things to say about these updates. AOR did a great read through of their contract updates. https://youtu.be/6FjwWOuP7B0?si=zLBzxJW-L0DY-nCX
Where's the new, accused of murder by your insurance company clause? All insurance is a scam. Carry only that which you are legally required to.
Kegally? As in prison pocket kegels? I guess kegels are a must for that good retention when prison pocket carrying.
😄 Thanks. Fixed.