Unique insurance can protect gun owners against frivolous charges

[Mr Wolverine]

If you call them please let us know what they say.

I'm curious what there opinion is of it and how educated they are themselves on the issue.

I spoke to them last week], I can assure you they are looking into this in great detail, hence the delay in a written reply. As I understand it "E" Division sent out an internal "Memo" stating that the 25 rd magazine (and others) for the Ruger 10/22 are prohibited. That is an opinion, there has been no change in the law or court ruling that I am aware of. We operate in "D" Division RCMP, and we have not been advised of any changes, nor have we been advised of any changes by the Manitoba CFO. This is exactly why this insurance is so important.

[berger]

I spoke to them last week], I can assure you they are looking into this in great detail, hence the delay in a written reply. As I understand it "E" Division sent out an internal "Memo" stating that the 25 rd magazine (and others) for the Ruger 10/22 are prohibited. That is an opinion, there has been no change in the law or court ruling that I am aware of. We operate in "D" Division RCMP, and we have not been advised of any changes, nor have we been advised of any changes by the Manitoba CFO. This is exactly why this insurance is so important.

Interesting. I had know idea about RCMP "divisions." So this was a divisional memo eh? Amazing how even one "division" of Mounties can affect the property of hundreds of thousands of Canadians.

[Double BC]

Just got it, I feel better.

[JayLei3000]

I recently purchased this, just for peace of mind. I know I am not doing anything illegal, but I am passionate about my hobby, and I would hate it if someone took my passion for a dangerous obsession or something that would pose risk to the public.

Even operating WELL within the bounds of the law, you never know who may have a personal agenda, out to make an example of a fellow law abiding firearms owner...

[ramhunter]

Problem here is that this is Bull#### from the start... Insurance one of the biggest scams going, why should anyone have to be insured.
Oh yeah because the low lifes that have set up our [JUSTICE ] system have ensured that they will make millions.
but only for profit.

[Mr Wolverine]

Interesting. I had know idea about RCMP "divisions." So this was a divisional memo eh? Amazing how even one "division" of Mounties can affect the property of hundreds of thousands of Canadians.

One "Division" or one "member" of one division?

[norlandgeese]

Tagged for interests, will read this thread in earnest, sounds like a good idea to have such insurance.

[Jericho]

How is forgeting to lock your door, WILFULLY breaking the law? That makes no sense.
Willfull generally signifies a sense of the intentional as opposed to the inadvertent, the deliberate as opposed to the unplanned, and the voluntary as opposed to the compelled.
In criminal-law statutes, willfully ordinarily means with a bad purpose or criminal intent, particularly if the proscribed act is mala in se (an evil in itself, intrinsically wrong) or involves moral turpitude.

Apples to oranges. You can't really apply the stringent standards of criminal law to a civil contract. Totally different beast.

[Jericho]

Okay, so I sent in a couple of questions to two email addresses...also asked which one is best to communicate...this is the response.

"Thank you for your business. We’re glad to see that the CGN forum is getting interest.

With regards to your questions, the free telephone legal advice service is just that, a telephone service. This service doesn’t provide any written responses, only over the phone opinion and advice. You will need to contact the telephone hotline at 1-877-832-7534. As you can imagine, with a cost of only $95/year, written responses could not be included in the coverage. However, we will endeavor in the future to look into having written responses as an additional option available."

Not saying whether this is good or bad yet, but it is my opinion that written is always better than phone, especially when it comes to legal. It gives the time to thoughtfully construct your questions and ensure they are complete; and gives the respondent time to think about their answer prior to giving it. It also gives a written record of what answers/advice was given. Verbal does not do that unless the call is recorded.

Being in business and having spent a great deal of money on legal, I have always found the lawyers give better advice when allowed time to review the question as opposed to having to give one on the fly during a telephone call.

Not trying to be a sh$t disturber, but I spend a ton of money on business and personal insurances and because of their varied coverages, have made claims on a few over the years....and of those, only one has ever went easy where they paid me with as little fuss as when I pay them. All the others made me jump through hoops to ultimately come to the same policy payout outcome that was due in the first place. I am wary of insurance providers! However, in saying that, one of my policies is actually with Capri insurance which is local to me. I have never made a claim with them so can't comment, but as mentioned have sent in the payments when due hoping that they will do the same should an issue ever arise.

At only 95$ a year, written responses cannot be provided?

And yet people are jumping head over heels for this policy to pay tens of thousands in protection?

The terms of the policy are questionable, much like the pet 'insurances' you can purchase. If your dog basically does anything that a dog does, like running (and gets hurt) he isn't covered.

Wilful acts? It is subjective. Did you wilfully put the 10/22 drum mag in your range bag?

There are many outs in the policy terms. A civil contract like this needs to be more defined. I would be interested on knowing how many claims are rejected and on what grounds, moreso than which claims are accepted.

And I have an issue with the company if they (sounds like) insinuate that they cannot take 3 minutes to type a response to you because you only pay 95$ a year, yet are supposed to be a saving grace if you get charged.

[Max Owner]

Type your question. Maybe get a typed reply?