Interesting email conversation with CCW Safe

[Countryside]

CCW Safe is a pre-paid legal service for legal CHL carriers. While looking at their website and reading their policy I took notice of these words concerning events they provide service for:
1.Any shooting occurring in any location that honors your concealed carry permit, with legally licensed firearms according to your concealed carry permit.
2.Any use of deadly force in any location that honors your permit(s) or license(s)."
I zeroed in on the words "that honors."
This sounded like a somewhat loose way to phrase it, especially in Texas where there are certain legal requirements that must be met in order to "dishonor" a person's legal CHL.
So I sent this email to them:

"Message: In regards to this wording:
"1.Any shooting occurring in any location that honors your concealed carry permit, with legally licensed firearms according to your concealed carry permit.
2.Any use of deadly force in any location that honors your permit(s) or license(s)."
In Texas, if a location has a valid, legal 30.06 sign (or 51% sign) clearly posted forbidding the carrying of concealed weapons, that is understandable. But in Texas notices must be posted in an exact way (with proper wording) and in a clear location for it to be legal notice that conceal carry is not allowed. What about a location that will claim to not "honor" the carry permit, but has not met the letter of the law in posting notice to that affect?"

Here is their response:

"Simple answer. We cover you in a critical self defense incident, but require you to obey the law and carry or possess your firearm legally. We are a law enforcement based company and require our members to follow the law.
Thanks and be safe,"


I thought perhaps they didn't understand my point, with my point being that the CHL carrier IS following the letter of the law, but the business is NOT. So I tried again. I replied with this:

"Ah, the key word being "law" and/or "lawful." If the CHL carrier is "legal," and if the sign is not lawful, then it is covered.
Thanks you, sir."



This was their response:

We require our members to obey the law. If someone doesn’t want you there with a gun, don’t go there. We are a law enforcement based company. We recommend you try and obey the law, not play with it. I hope you understand this is the same requirement with all the companies.


So I responded:

Oh, I know. But there is a difference between someone not "wanting you there with a gun" and "obeying the law." If someone has a non-legal sign that just says "no guns," to enter with a concealed weapon is legal since the sign falls short of being legal notice. Texas law is very specific about the proper posting of notices. I do still respect non-legal signs, though, since I would want someone to respect my wishes on my property, too.
I was just pondering an issue of a place not having the proper, legal signs (which a CHL carrier in Texas does not have to legally obey), and if a CHL carrier had an defensive encounter within such premises, how would it be viewed by CCW Safe?


They responded:

Again, we are a law enforcement based company. Our coverage requires our members to legally possess or carry a firearm. Your questions are how to find a technicality around the intent of the law. There are several companies out there that are anti-law enforcement and would be a better fit for you. I wish you luck, but CCW Safe is probably not the company for you.
Thanks and be safe,


I responded to this by stating it appears that if a law abiding CHL carrier has a self-defense event within a place that has NOT met the law in providing proper notice...the CHL carrier would not be provided their legal service due to the failure of the business to "honor" the CHL carriers' right... even if the business did NOT follow the law and the CHL carrier IS lawful in these circumstances.
Yes, the 30.06 law and the 51% law and legality of notices were pointed out to CCW Safe. I also expressed that I am not trying to find a way around anything, and that I do not go into places that have signs...even those signs that do not meet the legal standard. I told them that such a scenario is worth considering, and I was trying to glean some clarification of what they meant by "honor."
I've not heard anymore from them at this point.

What say ye?

[Charles L. Cotton]

I'm not sure why you mentioned the company's name, but my answer would be the same with or without it.

It's clear to me that if you are in legal possession of your firearm, then you are covered by their "policy" to whatever extent any coverage is offered. If I were representing the company and received your emails, I would be even more vague in my response. They don't know you from Adam and with Bloomberg goons jumping on opportunities to blast gown owners and companies dealing with gun owners, they are probably a concerned.

This is probably well known by now, but I'm not endorsing this or any pre-paid legal company!! Read the contract and know what you are getting and not getting. Check also to see if there are any lawsuits against the company you are considering.

Chas.

[Countryside]

I'm not sure why you mentioned the company's name, but my answer would be the same with or without it.

It's clear to me that if you are in legal possession of your firearm, then you are covered by their "policy" to whatever extent any coverage is offered. If I were representing the company and received your emails, I would be even more vague in my response. They don't know you from Adam and with Bloomberg goons jumping on opportunities to blast gown owners and companies dealing with gun owners, they are probably a concerned.

This is probably well known by now, but I'm not endorsing this or any pre-paid legal company!! Read the contract and know what you are getting and not getting. Check also to see if there are any lawsuits against the company you are considering.

Chas.

Yes, sir. I imagine they do have to keep their guard up. I don't blame them.

What if they had responded something like this?
"If a CHL carrier is legally and lawfully carrying a concealed handgun, and enters a premises that 1) Is not a location under Texas or Federal law where the carrying of a weapon is unlawful even with a CHL ...and 2) Is a location that has not met the lawful requirements of posting notice that the licensed, legal carrying of a concealed handgun is forbidden....then you would be covered by our policy."

If such was their policy then it would be very easy to state. I did not know the stating of the name of the company was improper.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I did not know the stating of the name of the company was improper.

It's not improper and I guess I'm going a bit overboard trying to be fair. I won't let people promote another pre-paid legal service and I don't want to be accused of allowing some to be named and not another.

Chas.

[flechero]

It almost seems that they are wanting to leave themselves an out if the even happened where legal but the business has a gunbuster sign...

Further confused by repeating that they "require you to obey the law and carry or possess your firearm legally." and then saying: "If someone doesn’t want you there with a gun, don’t go there." Which is often not a matter of legal or illegal.

It would have been nice if they would answer the question in a straightforward manner. The answers provided leave room to be condemned by BOTH sides.

I'm not a user of any of these type services, but even if I wanted them, this kind of seemingly intentional ambiguity would give me great pause.

[Countryside]

I proposed this same issue to [Pre-paid legal service] (who I am not endorsing) and this was their response:

Our members are covered for any incident where they are forced to use their firearm, or any other lawful weapon, in any place where they are legally allowed to possess the weapon in self-defense, or in justified defense of another.

For them the deciding factor is that you are legally allowed...not whether or not anyone does or does not "honor" your CHL.

[MONGOOSE]

Do they have an upper limit of coverage?

[tlt]

I'm keenly interested in this topic. From what I gathered [pre-paid legal] seemed to have better coverage than others, but I haven't yet pulled the trigger (pun intended) on a company.

I suspect Chas. comments are correct. I believe the NRA also has a product. I do understand the hesitation with cagey answers, perhaps you could call or visit with them first, then get it in writing. The last thing you need is legal problems with your legal representatives.

Perhaps a constructive comparison of the available products might be a worthwhile exercise. During my research [pre-paid legal] kept coming to the top of the list.

[Countryside]

Do they have an upper limit of coverage?

They have an option which can cover up to $25,000 in bail bonds...if that's what you mean.

[MONGOOSE]

I meant if you lost a law suit.

[Abraham]

I'm confused.

Are they essentially stating if a business posts ANY sort of 'no guns allowed sign', (not a 30.06 sign) and you end up defending yourself with a firearm in that place of business, they won't honor their contract to defend you?

Do I understand that right?

[TVegas]

I'm confused.

Are they essentially stating if a business posts ANY sort of 'no guns allowed sign', (not a 30.06 sign) and you end up defending yourself with a firearm in that place of business, they won't honor their contract to defend you?

Do I understand that right?

That's what it looks they are saying. I think it's important to remember that Texas is unique with regards to providing legal notice against CC. AFAIK, no other state requires the posting of penal code language. Other states give any sign the force of law, or they do not give signs the force of law.

It appears that CCW Safe is not fully aware/comfortable with the laws in Texas. They also state multiple times that they are a law enforcement based company. To me, that suggests that whoever was responding to those emails may be assume that any type of sign is always legal notice. Also, being law enforcement based doesn't mean that they have any better understanding of the law.

I'm not a member of any of these services, but I think [Pre-paid legal service] probably has the best understanding of Texas law. I'm not endorsing them though. Their issues have been discussed here at length.

[Pariah3j]

I'm confused.

Are they essentially stating if a business posts ANY sort of 'no guns allowed sign', (not a 30.06 sign) and you end up defending yourself with a firearm in that place of business, they won't honor their contract to defend you?

Do I understand that right?

My understanding was that its anywhere you use it 'legally' - so if you used it somewhere with improper postings you would be covered(because you can carry there legally), but if you used it at a 30.06 location, you would not be covered.

[Abraham]

Pariah3j,

Yeah, I agree, that's how it should be.

However, from the sound of their ambiguous "weasel words", I think they might argue any "no guns sign" let's them escape the cost of defending one in the case of self defense when using a firearm while in a business with only "gun buster" not "30.06" signage.

I hope I'm wrong, but they dodged the OP's very direct question at every turn, ultimately insulted him and suggested he take his business elsewhere.

[MONGOOSE]

I have an umbrella policy. It covers me, my cars, my animals and my home with excess coverage.