Unique insurance can protect gun owners against frivolous charges

bongoz said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Mr Wolverine said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...
 
megatron1337 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Apples to oranges. You can't really apply the stringent standards of criminal law to a civil contract. Totally different beast.
 
darkwing327 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Zeek13 said:
Anything available in Ontario like this ?
Click to expand...

Yes. I bought it. Before you sign up, find the CSSA discount word to save $10. It isn'y good enough to tell them you are a CSSA member. In order to correct this mistake, you have to cancel your insurance and sign up again.......sort of like the government . This needs to be fixed.

My concern is: Will they advise you to plead guilty to a charge just to take the easy way out.

Pleading guilty to a fiearms charge when you aren't guilty is a fool's game.
 
I'm very happy to have an option like this in Canada. FWIW, even in the US where they have much better laws, firearms legal defense is still highly recommended.

I listen to Gun Talk and they brought on a guest that had drawn his weapon in self-defense against someone that was approaching his vehicle with a bat and issuing verbal threats. The bad guy retreated and he drove off thinking that was the end of the situation until state troopers pulled him over and arrested him. The person that had made threats against him called the police and told him he was in the parking lot waving his gun around making threats against people's lives. He was charged with terroristic threats and various gun-related charges. The prosecutor pressed forward with the case. He eventually won his case but the cost to him personally was tens of thousands of dollars. The DA prosecuted even though the account of the accuser was inaccurate in saying it was a revolver instead of a semi-auto handgun among other inaccuracies and outright lies.

Our law, by contrast, has been specifically written to give prosecutors lots of leeway to should they not approve of our actions. The Thompson case was a flagrant example of that. Thankfully it's not too common. But $95 a year seems well worth the piece of mind.
 
What a fantastic idea. We shouldn't have to choose between defending our lives or our financial stability in a horrific home invasion situation anyway. Right on. Glad something like that is in place. Something that defends the livelihood of Canadian citizens. Very cool.
 
Mark-II said:
“The crowns are using the process as the punishment, and they’ll go forward with charges they know are frivolous charges or incorrect charges in order to weigh a punishment on this person because they can’t get a conviction, so they’ll punish you financially.”


I'd like to know about the possibility of counter-suits for malicious prosecution, if that's even a thing here.
Click to expand...

The Crown has bottomless pockets. How about you?
 
I did speak to Zach at Capri about this a week or two ago. Sounds like most people are buying this to cover legal fees when self defense comes into play. While I am interested in that I am also concerned about charges for use of Beowulf mags and the like. My concern was the policy reads that willful use of prohibited devices is excluded from coverage and wanted this clarified. What I was told is that the current underwriter is not fully on board that Beowulf mags are technically legal as per the firearms act and that they are working to reach an understanding. Until this is clarified I am not going to risk using them in the bush. He was able to share that they have a new underwriter that will include the magazines and all new policies will go to that company. They are also working to have coverage extended to people that bought the original policies. Hope I never need it but sure makes me a lot more comfortable knowing its in place.
 
b_w. said:
I did speak to Zach at Capri about this a week or two ago. Sounds like most people are buying this to cover legal fees when self defense comes into play. While I am interested in that I am also concerned about charges for use of Beowulf mags and the like. My concern was the policy reads that willful use of prohibited devices is excluded from coverage and wanted this clarified. What I was told is that the current underwriter is not fully on board that Beowulf mags are technically legal as per the firearms act and that they are working to reach an understanding. Until this is clarified I am not going to risk using them in the bush. He was able to share that they have a new underwriter that will include the magazines and all new policies will go to that company. They are also working to have coverage extended to people that bought the original policies. Hope I never need it but sure makes me a lot more comfortable knowing its in place.
Click to expand...

I just renewed about a week ago ....wonder if I'm with the new underwriter or the original one now? Guess a phone call to Capri may be in order.

As far as the Beowulf mags are concerned I would think no one really knows if the lab's interpretation is correct or not until a court decides the issue. Although it certainly wouldn't be the first time an insurance company denied coverage on pretty thin grounds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom