TexasCHLforum.com

rvsullivan wrote:I almost never post on here. But I do try to read here every day, and rarely is there a situation where I feel I could add anything to what most of the long term posters have to say.
But, in following this I think I see two things. One, anything they (the company) post on here could come up later in a court of law, and not in a positive way. Secondly, it appears they are saying just one thing, if you are legal (by Texas law), you will be covered. Not a lot of wriggle room there. Also, they are not an insurance company.
Thanks for letting me post.

That was a good post.
If it is on the internet...it is forever. On forums, Facebook, even email (ask Hillary.) Yes, that did have something to do with his emails to me and his posting here. It does not only apply to a company....it applies to all of us.
I was reminded that self-defense does not begin with owning or carrying a gun. It starts with the way we think, talk and conduct ourselves....including the way we use social media, texts, forums, emails...which can all become a factor if we are ever involved in an unwanted, undesired incident where we are forced to use a weapon to defend ourselves.

I just had a long, and pleasant, conversation with John at CCW Shield. He did share that the phrase "place that honors your concealed carry permit" originally meant the reciprocation between states concerning CHLs. He admitted that the laws have changed since then, but the bottom line is if you are carrying legally you will be covered. That's the bottom line. He explained to me the reasons he responded in certain ways...he was trying to help ME...and after he explained it to me it made sense. I appreciate the way he took what was at least 30 minutes to explain important things to a non-member. He didn't have to...he just did.
Thank you, John.

John, thanks for joining in on the discussion.

Let me ask it this way:

What is the definition of a place that does NOT honor a conceal carry permit?

I have sent another email to the representative of CCW Safe and provided links to this topic of discussion and a couple of other forums where it is being discussed. They have the opportunity to join the discussion and to clear up any misunderstandings if they so wish.

MONGOOSE wrote:Do they have an upper limit of coverage?

They have an option which can cover up to $25,000 in bail bonds...if that's what you mean.

I proposed this same issue to [Pre-paid legal service] (who I am not endorsing) and this was their response:

Our members are covered for any incident where they are forced to use their firearm, or any other lawful weapon, in any place where they are legally allowed to possess the weapon in self-defense, or in justified defense of another.

For them the deciding factor is that you are legally allowed...not whether or not anyone does or does not "honor" your CHL.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I'm not sure why you mentioned the company's name, but my answer would be the same with or without it.

It's clear to me that if you are in legal possession of your firearm, then you are covered by their "policy" to whatever extent any coverage is offered. If I were representing the company and received your emails, I would be even more vague in my response. They don't know you from Adam and with Bloomberg goons jumping on opportunities to blast gown owners and companies dealing with gun owners, they are probably a concerned.

This is probably well known by now, but I'm not endorsing this or any pre-paid legal company!! Read the contract and know what you are getting and not getting. Check also to see if there are any lawsuits against the company you are considering.

Chas.

Yes, sir. I imagine they do have to keep their guard up. I don't blame them.

What if they had responded something like this?
"If a CHL carrier is legally and lawfully carrying a concealed handgun, and enters a premises that 1) Is not a location under Texas or Federal law where the carrying of a weapon is unlawful even with a CHL ...and 2) Is a location that has not met the lawful requirements of posting notice that the licensed, legal carrying of a concealed handgun is forbidden....then you would be covered by our policy."

If such was their policy then it would be very easy to state. I did not know the stating of the name of the company was improper.

CCW Safe is a pre-paid legal service for legal CHL carriers. While looking at their website and reading their policy I took notice of these words concerning events they provide service for:
1.Any shooting occurring in any location that honors your concealed carry permit, with legally licensed firearms according to your concealed carry permit.
2.Any use of deadly force in any location that honors your permit(s) or license(s)."
I zeroed in on the words "that honors."
This sounded like a somewhat loose way to phrase it, especially in Texas where there are certain legal requirements that must be met in order to "dishonor" a person's legal CHL.
So I sent this email to them:

"Message: In regards to this wording:
"1.Any shooting occurring in any location that honors your concealed carry permit, with legally licensed firearms according to your concealed carry permit.
2.Any use of deadly force in any location that honors your permit(s) or license(s)."
In Texas, if a location has a valid, legal 30.06 sign (or 51% sign) clearly posted forbidding the carrying of concealed weapons, that is understandable. But in Texas notices must be posted in an exact way (with proper wording) and in a clear location for it to be legal notice that conceal carry is not allowed. What about a location that will claim to not "honor" the carry permit, but has not met the letter of the law in posting notice to that affect?"

Here is their response:

"Simple answer. We cover you in a critical self defense incident, but require you to obey the law and carry or possess your firearm legally. We are a law enforcement based company and require our members to follow the law.
Thanks and be safe,"


I thought perhaps they didn't understand my point, with my point being that the CHL carrier IS following the letter of the law, but the business is NOT. So I tried again. I replied with this:

"Ah, the key word being "law" and/or "lawful." If the CHL carrier is "legal," and if the sign is not lawful, then it is covered.
Thanks you, sir."



This was their response:

We require our members to obey the law. If someone doesn’t want you there with a gun, don’t go there. We are a law enforcement based company. We recommend you try and obey the law, not play with it. I hope you understand this is the same requirement with all the companies.


So I responded:

Oh, I know. But there is a difference between someone not "wanting you there with a gun" and "obeying the law." If someone has a non-legal sign that just says "no guns," to enter with a concealed weapon is legal since the sign falls short of being legal notice. Texas law is very specific about the proper posting of notices. I do still respect non-legal signs, though, since I would want someone to respect my wishes on my property, too.
I was just pondering an issue of a place not having the proper, legal signs (which a CHL carrier in Texas does not have to legally obey), and if a CHL carrier had an defensive encounter within such premises, how would it be viewed by CCW Safe?


They responded:

Again, we are a law enforcement based company. Our coverage requires our members to legally possess or carry a firearm. Your questions are how to find a technicality around the intent of the law. There are several companies out there that are anti-law enforcement and would be a better fit for you. I wish you luck, but CCW Safe is probably not the company for you.
Thanks and be safe,


I responded to this by stating it appears that if a law abiding CHL carrier has a self-defense event within a place that has NOT met the law in providing proper notice...the CHL carrier would not be provided their legal service due to the failure of the business to "honor" the CHL carriers' right... even if the business did NOT follow the law and the CHL carrier IS lawful in these circumstances.
Yes, the 30.06 law and the 51% law and legality of notices were pointed out to CCW Safe. I also expressed that I am not trying to find a way around anything, and that I do not go into places that have signs...even those signs that do not meet the legal standard. I told them that such a scenario is worth considering, and I was trying to glean some clarification of what they meant by "honor."
I've not heard anymore from them at this point.

What say ye?