Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 77

Thread: Dont Get Legal Advice from Facebook

  1. #61
    CGN Ultra frequent flyer Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Cambridge
    Posts
    4,821
    Does the policy provide bail court counsel as well? Or only trial coverage?

  2. #62
    CGN Ultra frequent flyer CV32's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    The Rock
    Posts
    37,266
    Quote Originally Posted by hunter148 View Post
    If insurance gives you a piece of mind great, go with but don't expect it to cover you when the sh&&t gets thick
    This is exactly why I have been, from the start, interested in hearing about verifiable case(s) where the insurance has gone the distance, through a trial (and beyond, to appeal, if possible.)
    "There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices. To be found only in the minds of men. For the record, prejudices can kill, and suspicion can destroy, and the frightened, thoughtless search for a scapegoat has a fallout all of its own ..." - The Twilight Zone

  3. #63
    CGN Ultra frequent flyer
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Ground Zero
    Posts
    16,463
    Hi Zack, thanks for the reply. You have certainly been more open and responsive than I would have expected. If the policy program matches your openness and responsiveness than I would have no problem paying double what that policy is worth, and would sleep soundly doing so.

    Unfortunately my experience with lawyers and insurance companies leaves a lot to be desired. I understand that you are forging new ground with this policy program, and that the program will grow and evolve as more customers hop in, which I hope they do. As you guys get some more experience handling real world claims, as opposed to all of our hypotheticals based on fear, I'm sure that you will use that experience to can bolster and strengthen the coverage of this program.

    As I am sure you could predict, your answers raise a few more questions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Capri Insurance View Post

    1. With regards to section 1 of the coverage - All criminal actions are excluded other than pursuant to sections 86 (Careless use of a firearm),
    91 (Unauthorized possession of a firearm), 92 (Possession of a firearm knowing its possession is
    unauthorized), 94 (Unauthorized possession in a motor vehicle), or 105 (Losing or finding) of
    the Criminal Code of Canada UNLESS where self defence is pleaded.

    The intent is to remove cover for intentional acts.
    This is very very troubling.

    At the very outset, your policy claims to cover the following:
    1.1 Firearm Offences
    Underwriters will pay the Legal Expenses to defend the Insured’s legal rights in relation to the Insured being prosecuted for an offence arising out of the use, storage, display, transportation or handling of a firearm.
    This is ironic because all of the offences that are covered are POSSESSION offences (except 105), which surprisingly is not listed as one of the behaviours covered under your policy.

    Criminal code offences S 85 (uses firearm in the commission of an indictable offence), 87 (pointing a firearm), 88 (possession for a dangerous purpose), 89 (Carrying while attending a public meeting), 90 (Carrying concealed) are USE offences. If the policy intends to cover firearms owners, why would it not cover all of the possible offences that arise out of the use of a firearm?

    I understand that the policy does not intent to cover overt criminal acts that were intended to be committed by the policy holder, and that is perfectly fair. Your policy carries a blanket exclusion to that effect. It would be redundant and contradictory to also exclude certain USE offences in toto. Remind your underwriter, that a person need not point a firearm, or even intend to point a firearm, in order to be charged with the criminal offence for pointing a firearm.

    Remember that a police officer who believes an offence MIGHT have been committed, is duty bound to investigate. When the offence involves firearms, prudence will often require that he seize the firearms in question pending the investigation. By laying charges, the police officer has access to certain legal measures to assist him in his investigation, and most police will tell you that there really isn't any harm in charging someone, and then withdrawing the charge later if it is unmerited.

    Imagine an IPSC match, where someone is accused by a match director of breaking 90 degrees, and the competitor disagrees. The dispute gets heated. The MD claims that whether they broke 90 or not, there was someone in the area that the person swept with the muzzle of their pistol. The competitor disagrees. Several witness agree with the competitor that no one was down range and the competitor did not break 90. It gets heated. The MD asks the competitor to leave, and they refuse. The MD calls the police to have the competitor removed from the range, and upon arrival the MD tells the police that the competitor pointed his pistol at another competitor. Police officer has no idea what to make of any of this, but since this is a complaint involving safety, firearms, and a risk of violence, the police wants to seize the firearms and so the competitor is charged for pointing a firearm and likely a variety of other offences. Would the policy respond?

    S 88 of the criminal code, is one of the most abused charges in Part 3 of the criminal code. Any time that a law enforcement officer is contemplating charging a firearms owner for any reason, particularly where the police officer doesn't like a firearms owners explanation for their behaviour, the police can lay a charge for dangerous purpose. It is almost always tossed out, but the owner will have to defend that charge.

    If a person lives in a neighborhood where there has been several break-ins, and a gun owner is stopped at a routine traffic stop, and a police officer notices that the person has a legally and safely transported non restricted firearm in their car, and the person claims that they "always keep a firearm in their car, just in case", a police can lay a charge for this under S88. Despite the transportation being safe and legal, and the presumed reason being self defense as a result of living in a high crime area, a person can be charged under S88 for essentially nothing. Would the policy respond?

    Section 89 charges can arise from a dispute over what constitutes a public meeting completely independent of the possession of a firearm. If a person was in possession of a firearm for a lawful purpose, but a police officer decided that the peaceful and consensual gathering of his friends constituted a public meeting and was charged, would the policy respond?

    90 Carrying concealed is hotly disputed, particularly because there is a court case R v Felawka, that says any attempt to conceal a firearm from public view can be considered the intent to carry concealed, despite the fact that the regulations for storage and transportation of firearms at times require gun owners to conceal their firearms from view. Using non descript gun cases, IE guitar cases, gym bags, etc is routinely done by firearms owners in populated areas for the purpose of not alarming their neighbors and not making themselves a visible firearm owner to potential criminals who might B&E to steal. If a gun owner was charged for carrying concealed when lawfully and safely transporting his firearm in a case that was not obviously a firearms case, or marked as containing firearms, per Felawka , would the policy respond?

    93 (Possession at unauthorized place) and 95 (possession with ammunition/loaded at unauthorized place) are TRANSPORTATION offences. If the intent of the policy is to cover firearms owners for the offences related to the transportation of a firearm, why would the policy exclude the two offences that a person can be charged with for transportation offences?

    This is particularly troubling because since Bill C42 came into force, ATTs are commonly issued as a condition of a license, and not as a stand alone document. In order to avoid reissuing 600,000 RPAL licenses on the day that bill came into force, CFOs across the country have been lying to gun owners and telling them that an electronic record in their secret database is sufficient for the purposes of having an ATT, and therefore legally transporting firearms. However, these ATTs have not been issued to the license holder in accordance with the firearms act, these gun owners have no documentation or proof of the issuance of their ATT until they renew their license, can not show their ATT to a law enforcement officer on demand as required by 117 of the code, and will not be able to meet the reverse onus of proof required of all gun owners charged with offences where they rely on the existence of documentation as a defense against charges. It seems to me that this is precisely the kind of trouble that the policy would WANT to cover. Why exclude it?

    I can provide a similar list for each and every offence that has been excluded from the policy, and give real world examples of how legal gun owners with no intent to commit criminal acts can and have been charged for each of the excluded offences. It gets a bit murky from s96 onwards, but the point remains that law abiding gun owners lacking criminal intent can and have been maliciously or erroneously charged for every offence in part 3 of the criminal code. It seems redundant and counter productive to me that a policy would claim to protect gun owners from such prosecution, carry an exclusion that overt criminal acts will not be covered, (which is fair) and then also ASSUME that certain offences will ALWAYS be a result of an overt act, and then exclude them by default.

    Further, your policy states that a person might be covered under those offences if they have an available offence of self defense. What if the policy holder believes they were acting in self defense, but the defense fails to convince the judge and the person is convicted? A person can ALWAYS argue self defense at trial, success is NEVER guaranteed. It seems like it is putting the cart before the horse to suggest that a person will only be covered unless they were acting in self defense.

    Also, several of the offences allow for a specific defense of lawful excuse, separate from self defense. It would seem unfair to not cover a firearm owner where they can successfully argue a lawful excuse. Remember it is the judge that must be convinced in the end, and police officers dealing with suspicious behaviour and notorious for being being readily convinced of anything (and with good reason).

    2. Cover extends to firearms for which the member holds a licence. If the defence is to say it is
    not a firearm then this presupposes the member did not have a valid licence for the weapon.
    Then there is no cover.

    The intent is to exclude charges stemming from items such as knives, bow & arrows and other non firearm type items.
    This is a completely false presupposition. If I disassemble a shotgun, and then point the barrel at someone, I can be charged by a police officer for pointing a firearm. I have a license. My possession of the firearm is legal. A barrel is not a firearm. Would the policy respond?

    Further, Section 91 of the criminal code, one of the offences covered by the policy, is what a person would be charged with for offences relating to the possession of magazines. Magazines are very contentious, and the RCMP has a particular focus on them at the moment. Are you saying that no offences relating to the possession of magazines are covered?

    If the intent is to exclude things that are not regulated by the Criminal Code and the Firearms act, then say so. Remember, that the definition of WEAPON in the criminal code requires INTENT. A knife, a bow, an arrow, etc, is not a WEAPON unless there is INTENT. Your blanket exclusion that disqualifies overt acts would already exclude any bona fide charges in relation to these objects, and therefore the troubling exclusion which requires the object giving rise to the charges must be a firearm is unnecessary. Not the least of which is the fact that it would seem that all ammunition, and many accessories that could be regulated under the criminal code would be automatically excluded from the policy.

    3. STERLON, the underwriting manager, will make such determination acting on behalf of the
    underwriter and will have regard to the opinion of the appointed representative and any other
    advisor it deems necessary to consult.
    Will have regard to, but is not bound to, the opinion of the appointed representative. I appreciate your response to another posted that accepting a firearms ban and losing 10,000s of dollars firearms property would not be acceptable. I would love to see it spelled out in writing in the policy a general presumption that no offer which results in the policy holder being forced to accept any offer which results in a conviction that will result in the loss of a license or forfeiture of property would be considered acceptable by the underwriter. Without one, I find it hard to believe that the underwriter, considering the choice between accepting 99% if charges dropped with a conviction and suspended sentence for the accused on the most minor offence, or proceeding to a lengthy trial against dozens of frivolous charges, would find that the offer was unreasonable and continue to cover the accused.

    5. It is understood that these can be purchased and used in Canada safely and legally. However, this question can stem back to question #2. This policy doesn't extend to an item that it not a firearm.
    Charges relating from the use of binary explosives are not covered. Fair enough. What about firearms related offences that were charged in relation to the detonation of binary explosives?

    It seems like there are a variety of situations where a firearms owner could be charged for a litany of charges for a single event, and only SOME of the offences might be covered under the policy, and others not. How would the policy respond to a situation where a gun owner was charged, but only half of the charges were covered under the policy?

    When I sit back in my chair, and think about all of the possible trouble I could get into as a legal gun owner who lacks any intent to commit criminal offences, and probably does a better than average job to not only comply, but APPEAR to comply, I suspect that your policy covers less than 10% of what I'm afraid of. Your policy would seem to cover the costs associated with challenging a license revocation, but would not even cover the costs associated with the revocation of registration certificates, which would automatically be revoked if my license were suspended, and NOT automatically reinstated if I got my license back.

    There is nothing on the market better than the insurance offered by FLD, I have no doubt of that. The other policies offered by others appear to just be a cheap knock off. I would go with FLD over the others in a heart beat based exclusively off of Zacks willingness to lift his skirt and answer all our questions. But there is just too much left off the table at the moment for me to get excited at this point.
    Last edited by Cameron SS; 09-08-2017 at 12:25 PM.
    Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods. HL Mencken. 1919.

  4. #64
    Super GunNutz
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Inside BC
    Posts
    1,206
    In your response to Cameron in Post #48:

    "2. Cover extends to firearms for which the member holds a licence. If the defence is to say it is
    not a firearm then this presupposes the member did not have a valid licence for the weapon.
    Then there is no cover.

    The intent is to exclude charges stemming from items such as knives, bow & arrows and other non firearm type items."


    Does this mean that charges for storage, display, transportation, or possession of Prescribed Antique Firearms would not be covered?

    Regards,
    Powderman

  5. #65
    CGN Ultra frequent flyer
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Ground Zero
    Posts
    16,463
    Quote Originally Posted by powderman View Post
    In your response to Cameron in Post #48:

    "2. Cover extends to firearms for which the member holds a licence. If the defence is to say it is
    not a firearm then this presupposes the member did not have a valid licence for the weapon.
    Then there is no cover.

    The intent is to exclude charges stemming from items such as knives, bow & arrows and other non firearm type items."


    Does this mean that charges for storage, display, transportation, or possession of Prescribed Antique Firearms would not be covered?Regards,
    Powderman
    Great question. That is not for me to answer. Antiques are tricky because they ARE firearms, but are exempt from many of the offences in Part 3 of the criminal code. All a cop has to do is not believe that your gun is an antique, and you can get charged for a variety of offences, and you will have to prove that the antique firearm, which IS a firearm, is NOT a firearm, for the purpose of the THOSE offenses. Clear?

    Add it to the list of things that a gun owner would love to have an Legal Defense insurance policy for, that probably isn't covered under the policy in question.

    Especially because without any license, registration certificate or authorization to carry, you can legally open carry a loaded antique pistol anywhere that it is legal to discharge firearms, but try convincing any cop that your functional antique pistol is 'not a firearm'.
    Last edited by Cameron SS; 09-08-2017 at 12:26 PM.
    Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods. HL Mencken. 1919.

  6. #66
    CGN Regular Rhythm & Soul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    108
    Quote Originally Posted by Cameron SS View Post
    There is nothing on the market better than the insurance offered by FLD, I have no doubt of that. The other policies offered by others appear to just be a cheap knock off. I would go with FLD over the others in a heart beat based exclusively off of Zacks willingness to lift his skirt and answer all our questions. But there is just too much left off the table at the moment for me to get excited at this point.
    How about CCFR? I noticed they offer legal advice and legal defence as an extra cost when getting a membership.

    I'll definitely join CCFR, but not sure if I should go with FLD or get everything with CCFR.

  7. #67
    CGN Ultra frequent flyer
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Ground Zero
    Posts
    16,463
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhythm & Soul View Post
    How about CCFR? I noticed they offer legal advice and legal defence as an extra cost when getting a membership.

    I'll definitely join CCFR, but not sure if I should go with FLD or get everything with CCFR.
    This is a business members forum, so I will refrain from saying much about a competitors product. Read the policy offered by the CCFR side by side with Capri's. If anything in their policy looks similar to Capri's, or raises any of the same questions, feel free to email them and ask for clarification. I would be very interested to see if they would be as responsive and forth coming as Zack has been.

    You should know that the partners who together provide the Legal Expense Insurance for CCFR, are Arthur J Gallagher and DAS insurance. Neither of their corporate websites contain a single reference to this product. Neither company actively promotes this insurance as a product, contains any information whatsoever on the product, and does not include any customer testimonials directly related to this product.

    Whereas Capri does have a section on their site dedicated specifically to this product, does actively promote it, and have customers who have actually filed claims and been supported by the policy. Regardless of price of policy, which company would you choose? The one for whom this is a key business focus (Capri) , or the one who its merely an after thought (the other guys).
    Last edited by Cameron SS; 09-08-2017 at 01:45 PM.
    Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods. HL Mencken. 1919.

  8. #68
    CGN frequent flyer K-C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Grey County, ON
    Posts
    1,138
    I wouldn't be without this coverage and CSSA members get an annual discount on the policy premium...
    We shall pass this way on Earth but once, if there is any kindness we can show, or good act we can do, let us do it now, for we will never pass this way again - Stephen Grellet
    East Grey Hunters & Anglers Association (visit us at http://eghaa.ca)

  9. #69
    Expired Business Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    349
    Quote Originally Posted by Cameron SS View Post
    There is nothing on the market better than the insurance offered by FLD, I have no doubt of that. The other policies offered by others appear to just be a cheap knock off. I would go with FLD over the others in a heart beat based exclusively off of Zacks willingness to lift his skirt and answer all our questions. But there is just too much left off the table at the moment for me to get excited at this point.
    I do appreciate all the input you've given Cameron. To sum up everything you've said, the program doesn't cover every single possible scenario a gun owner could be confronted with, yet. This is where we use everything you've said and more and continue to build the program into something better then it was last year and the year before that. I asked the underwriters for a quick loss run and so far we've saved gun owners over $50,000 in legal charges. If we're able to do that with our current policy imagine what we can do as we grow? As a company dedicated to the Firearms Community, right from the large wholesaler or retail store right down to the single gun owner ( if you didn't know, we also insure a large number of firearms business' as well) we look forward to continuing our support for decades to come.

  10. #70
    Expired Business Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    349
    Quote Originally Posted by Cameron SS View Post
    You should know that the partners who together provide the Legal Expense Insurance for CCFR, are Arthur J Gallagher and DAS insurance. Neither of their corporate websites contain a single reference to this product. Neither company actively promotes this insurance as a product, contains any information whatsoever on the product, and does not include any customer testimonials directly related to this product.

    Whereas Capri does have a section on their site dedicated specifically to this product, does actively promote it, and have customers who have actually filed claims and been supported by the policy. Regardless of price of policy, which company would you choose? The one for whom this is a key business focus (Capri) , or the one who its merely an after thought (the other guys).
    Food for thought

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •