Capri Insurance and OIC

[mgroom]

Capri never actually answers the questions people have, just vague statements that dodge the issue.. or, they'll insist on taking the discussion to PM's instead of having the answer in the open. Every time I think its a good idea to get the insurance something puts me off.

[greentips]

Murray Smiths testimony should make it clear to everyone that there is no clear procedure or identifying characteristics. Merely their inept and convoluted opinions.
As long as he gets to keep his Browning BAR....

I think If Capri is willing to fight this for policy holders, they will have a much larger customer base.

Lets be realistic here - it is a 90 bucks a year legal service. Capri is a broker, the underwriter is who that pays out. The underwriter is neither pro gun nor anti gun.

People want to pay 90 bucks a year and want insurance company to pick up epic political battle on their behalf. This is not what this is for. This is a service for joe who needs to call someone when there is a legal matter, like cops don't know what they are doing and giving you trouble. This is not a political war chest for people to join and go challenge the OIC or other laws.

In fact, if people insist on this and actually do this, the underwriter eventually gonna say screw this and leave the industry all together as the risk shoots up. Know its limitation and what this is for, and this is not for people to take a OIC gun around and then explore the what if with the hope insurance will pick up the tab.

[Janeau]

What about firearms that were prohibited post OIC via FRT changes?

FRT is no law and nothing prohib their use or change the status of ecxisting -sold guns. Period.

[timandkimandshea]

We can be realistic, and Capri can just state their position on claims involving OIC banned firearms. Ya ?

[greentips]

We can be realistic, and Capri can just state their position on claims involving OIC banned firearms. Ya ?

This is not Capri's position, this is the underwriter's position. Capri's most likely won't know the answer, and they will have to ask the underwriter.

When you go ask the underwriter such tricky things, their risk control people will start asking questions. When risk control people start reviewing things, it could only lead to bad things.

This is what I think, I would rather Capri NOT to bother the underwriter with this OIC stuff. I have use for this service. OIC is not all the things, and I honestly don't want capri to poke the underwriter with this OIC stuff and put my policy at risk. I like the policy and I don't need to ask the questions that potentially lead to bad consequences for curiosity sake.

[Cameron SS]

Lets be realistic here - it is a 90 bucks a year legal service. Capri is a broker, the underwriter is who that pays out. The underwriter is neither pro gun nor anti gun.

People want to pay 90 bucks a year and want insurance company to pick up epic political battle on their behalf. This is not what this is for. This is a service for joe who needs to call someone when there is a legal matter, like cops don't know what they are doing and giving you trouble. This is not a political war chest for people to join and go challenge the OIC or other laws.

In fact, if people insist on this and actually do this, the underwriter eventually gonna say screw this and leave the industry all together as the risk shoots up. Know its limitation and what this is for, and this is not for people to take a OIC gun around and then explore the what if with the hope insurance will pick up the tab.

If 1 million owners had the insurance then it probably could be a legal war chest. But the underwriters willingness to respond to claims is directly related to how much revenue the premiums generate.

[scourge18a]

Lets be realistic here - it is a 90 bucks a year legal service. Capri is a broker, the underwriter is who that pays out. The underwriter is neither pro gun nor anti gun.

People want to pay 90 bucks a year and want insurance company to pick up epic political battle on their behalf. This is not what this is for. This is a service for joe who needs to call someone when there is a legal matter, like cops don't know what they are doing and giving you trouble. This is not a political war chest for people to join and go challenge the OIC or other laws.

In fact, if people insist on this and actually do this, the underwriter eventually gonna say screw this and leave the industry all together as the risk shoots up. Know its limitation and what this is for, and this is not for people to take a OIC gun around and then explore the what if with the hope insurance will pick up the tab.

Thanks Tips, I appreciate the information, but I want to hear it from Capri. I think people would appreciate clarification from the provider they may or may not be purchasing services from.

FRT is no law and nothing prohib their use or change the status of ecxisting -sold guns. Period.

We all know that LEOs will be using the FRT to lay charges, and to the less financially able, the courts will convict based on the "expert opinion"

If 1 million owners had the insurance then it probably could be a legal war chest. But the underwriters willingness to respond to claims is directly related to how much revenue the premiums generate.

This is why I ask. If it's a yes, I would expect membership to increase, enhancing the financial incentive, adding to the fight on another level.
I don't really expect the finances to work out, but does it hurt to ask?


Lots of other tough guys on here telling others what to do with their FRT prohibs, but they won't be helping to pay your legal fees. Anyone that has been to court, even once, knows that most people cannot afford any court costs. The majority of Canadians are $200 away from insolvency, ready to be supported by the incoming UBI funded with your CPP. And you can bet that they are hoping that some broke bloke will get charged to set precedent quickly instead of a well funded organization fighting it properly with resources in court. The legal system is a money system, not a justice system.

[Ian Sa]

Capri never actually answers the questions people have

That hasn't been my experience. I've bought it and have talked to them. I've forgottwn the name at the moment but the lawyer was quite nice and answered all my questions without rushing.
Alot of the complaints here seem to be from non-customers.

[uglydukwling]

How does "nullification" of certificates affect the issue?

And where do those objects that weren't firearms at all before the oic fit in? Is there any difference in the way they're affected?

[1ABNDT]

That's what I would like to know too. The OIC guns are one thing, as they are clearly prohibited firearms, but the ones that went prohib due to FRT changes are not prohibited by law, and the fact that most of those guns were previously classed as NR makes you really question the validity of the opinion.

A similar issue arises with the Stag 10. A pre-ban version of the FRT has an even clearer statement in its Canadian Law Comments regarding the Stag 10: “The Stag Arms, Model STAG-10 firearm does not incorporate mechanical, aesthetic or other design features that can be traced directly to any particular firearm; it is therefore not considered a variant of any firearm found in the “Prohibited Firearms Regulations” or the “Restricted Firearms Regulations” appended to the Criminal Code.”


This pre-ban FRT entry for the Stag, made publicly available and current just days before the May 1 OIC, clearly states that the Stag 10 is explicitly not an AR variant.

A post-ban version of the same FRT entry, now reflecting the Stag’s current prohibited status has no Canadian Law Comments.


This later version of the publicly available FRT, current as of last week, indicates that the Stag 10 is now prohibited as an AR variant.

In other words, evidence of the Stag’s justification for being non-restricted; that quite clear statement, “it is therefore not considered a variant of any firearm found in the “Prohibited Firearms Regulations” or the “Restricted Firearms Regulations,” has been removed, and the firearm reclassified… a move that, according to the previous FRT data and much like what we’re seeing with today’s prohibitions, seems to be beyond the scope of the OIC’s prohibition of explicitly AR variants.

We strongly recommend anyone with one of these rifles wait for further instruction. With such strong evidence of inappropriate tampering (with regards to the legal comments and other descriptors of formerly non-restricted firearms being summarily deleted from records) and prohibitions beyond the scope of the OIC’s regulatory amendments, it is highly likely that Judicial Reviews will be employed to address this overstepping.


Further to that point. The government authorizes those competitions by legislation that has not been repealed. It subsidizes those competitions by permitting them on Federal property and still does.

It sanctions the use of shooting ranges for those purposes, ranges whose range approvals still permit those competitions, knowing full well what equipment those competitions require.

If the government was genuinely of the belief that these firearms and those like them are not suitable for competition and such competitions are a danger to the public, then there are at least 20 other things that should have been banned along with the firearms themselves. The glaring inconsistencies definitely beg scrutiny.