Unique insurance can protect gun owners against frivolous charges

[Wendell]

I failed to mention that ACLDN membership benefits are only available in the USA; we can join, but it's only good while we're stateside; that is why I said we need a made-in-Canada version of it.

[Karl]

"Bernardo claims there have been cases where charges have been dropped once the crown discovers the defendant has firearm legal defence insurance."

Wow, that's maddening. How corrupt is our legal system when people are punished by the crown who knows they don't have a case.

You have no idea how corrupt. Police working directly for the benefit of lawyers by not investigating prior to laying charges, Crown Prosecutors hanging on to ridiculous trumped up charges until a fat cheque is handed to the defense lawyer. Tells you who is running the show.

[NVShooter]

You have no idea how corrupt. Police working directly for the benefit of lawyers by not investigating prior to laying charges, Crown Prosecutors hanging on to ridiculous trumped up charges until a fat cheque is handed to the defense lawyer. Tells you who is running the show.

This is the "legal system" we have in Canada. "Justice" is no longer in the house, it left with Elvis...

[Karl]

deleted

[CravingGlory]

This happens no matter what the offense. Get a good lawyer and watch how fast the crown says "Abort! This will go to trial and we will lose"

[Sinbad]

I signed up $95 a yr. But I called to ask questions about club discounts mentioned on their site left a message almost a week ago and no reply.

So if I ever need them I sure hope they learn how to use the phone

[Jericho]

I'm totally with you on this one, creating something like you describe will take time, there are multiple regulatory issues to overcome, and efforts are already underway. It's slow as molasses, in the meantime, you're absolutely right, no one should harass you once you cancel or non-renew. Take it from someone with intimate details of what's going on in the industry, current offerings are great for what they are, the wordings may seem in the insurers favour, but if you read on it also speaks about a panel who will decide if there are any disputes/disagreements. Every lawyer who represents you has to do so to the best of their ability, and neither carrier can dictate to settle the case because it will cost too much to fight it, they must convince you that the deal you're getting is fair. Legally, you are going to get the best deal possible, otherwise you expose a billion plus dollar insurance company to a conflict of interest lawsuit. Insurer will more likely cancel the program the following year than try to screw a customer and risk their reputation, those days are pretty much gone.

Been saying this all along. +1

[MikeTheRock]

I would also like to hear from anyone who actually had to rely on the policy. On my quick read the insured must pay all bills and be invoiced directly by the lawyer. I don't see anywhere that the insurer must pay for the defence while it is underway. Being possibly reimbursed is a lot different than having the insurer pay along the way.

Also the Underwriters have an incredible amount of discretion in forcing a settlement. This makes a bit of sense in a civil claim, and no sense in a criminal charge.

Maybe the Underwriters will be great to deal with, but don't fool yourself, they hold all the cards under the terms of the policy.

One positive takeaway is that this would never be considered by an Underwriter if they thought it would be a common occurrence. So clearly firearms owners who are involved enough to look at insurance are not getting into trouble very often. So we are good people!