What I learned from the above is that incidents where an attorney is needed is very rare and the costs are typically much lower.  What makes the biggest difference is knowing the laws and being well trained in self-defense.  Only 1% of CCW licensees have training beyond a basic CCW course as stated here and is a good podcast to listen to:  https://ccwsafe.com/resources/in-self-defense-podcast-110-karl-rehn-pt-1/

So with regard to the things the YT'er are saying about USCCA, I mentioned the prank one and here's more info on the Kayla Giles that they're blasting.

USCCA did pay $50K for a retainer.
But...
She and her exhusband had problems and custody battle going on. He wanted to take their daughter to a party and planned to meet up to exchange her.

She bought a gun and USCCA coverage 12 days prior to her shooting him because she was afraid of him.

She claims self defense.

Deleted text messages on her phone state that he wanted to meet at the police station. She said no and Walmart was the 2nd choice. Imagine being so afraid that you had to buy a gun, but refused to meet at a police station to exchange custody of your child, but chose Walmart instead.

Deleted internet search history on her laptop was somethign ike: Justifiable homicide, justifiable homicide in a car, Louisiana statute of limitation for homicide, etc...

Her friend testified that she said she wanted to kill her ex and asked to borrow a gun.

Her daughter testified that her dad didn't lunge at her like she stated. But the child is young so take with a grain of salt.

I think there's more, but I can't remember.

On 1 occassion, he had a black eye from her.

So in the end, she was found guilty of pre-meditated murder.

I think she knew how to push his buttons and she was the aggressor. So add in all the above and sounds like the state got this one correct and so was USCCA.

There is more than 1 YTer bashing USCCA for this specific situation.

I also question Armed Scholar as his vids have become more click baity. But I get it, money talks.

USCCA"s problem is that they're silent on all the accusations.  Maybe due to legal reasons, but they should at least come out and state so more often. They need a PR person that's good. And having Tim Kennedy, who doesn't think under 21 should own a rifle is a bad option as their spokesman.

So in the end, each company has it's pros and cons. AOR isn't as tested as USCCA due to the lack of members compared to USCCA.  Only time will tell.

So with regard to the things the YT'er are saying about USCCA, I mentioned the prank one and here's more info on the Kayla Giles that they're blasting.

USCCA did pay $50K for a retainer.
But...

Thanks, I didn't know much about the Giles case and it make sense denying coverage based on that.

For the Coley case, it's a bit strange for USCCA to deny coverage but Coley did state he turned down help from USCCA and it's possible he was lucky and got a great public defender.

Be very suspicious about claims for or against something on youtube by influencers that are getting paid to do it.

Thanks, I didn't know much about the Giles case and it make sense denying coverage based on that.

For the Coley case, it's a bit strange for USCCA to deny coverage but Coley did state he turned down help from USCCA and it's possible he was lucky and got a great public defender.

Be very suspicious about claims for or against something on youtube by influencers that are getting paid to do it.

Since no $ was offered up like how Giles was, this is the dangerous part. Someone is making a judgement and was wrong since his atty did get him to be found not guilty as it was self defense.  But I get it due to the vid being out there.

Since no $ was offered up like how Giles was, this is the dangerous part. Someone is making a judgement and was wrong since his atty did get him to be found not guilty as it was self defense.  But I get it due to the vid being out there.

Clarification on wrong choice of words, I didn't mean USCCA denied coverage rather they didn't fund the defense.

No matter what company is used, there will be a person or persons that make a judgement and decide to cover or not.  Even if a claim is obviously murder or clearly self-defense, someonel has to research it and make a decision on it.  The issue of insurance denials is overblown.

Clarification on wrong choice of words, I didn't mean USCCA denied coverage rather they didn't fund the defense.

No matter what company is used, there will be a person or persons that make a judgement and decide to cover or not.  Even if a claim is obviously murder or clearly self-defense, someonel has to research it and make a decision on it.  The issue of insurance denials is overblown.

You're right, USCCA denied Austin coverage. Which is why he had to use a public defender.

You're right, USCCA denied Austin coverage. Which is why he had to use a public defender.

USCCA's claim is they didn't deny coverage rather Alan turned it down.  Alan said in an email that he turned down USCCA coverage and went with the public defender.  It's wierd and unusual, but it's also possible he got a great public defender he wanted to stick with.  There are sometimes good public defenders that are better than private practice ones.  Sometimes great private practice attorneys volunteer to be public defenders as a service to the community.

Another one bites the dust on USCCA.   

Another one bites the dust on USCCA.   

With the youtube prankster, I question GnG's input.  Like Zippz said, wait a few years to see if he has anything bad to say about AOR once his contract is up.

I liked the explanation/rationale that Armed Scholar mentioned about difference between insurance group (racket) vs attorneys.  Not sure what is true/fact, but I think that is a key consideration. 

I'm up for renewal soon and will definitely be looking into more.  Appreciate and also wary of the guntuber/influencer angle.  I've watched some of G&G's videos and to me he's just someone who tries a bunch of stuff.  He seemed very much more of a shill than an objective product reviewer. 

I liked the explanation/rationale that Armed Scholar mentioned about difference between insurance group (racket) vs attorneys.  Not sure what is true/fact, but I think that is a key consideration. 

I'm up for renewal soon and will definitely be looking into more.  Appreciate and also wary of the guntuber/influencer angle.  I've watched some of G&G's videos and to me he's just someone who tries a bunch of stuff.  He seemed very much more of a shill than an objective product reviewer.

Can you find out what the retainer amount is for AOR?  I couldn't find any info on their website.

Another things is to look up which attorney's are in their network that can practice in HI.

Can you find out what the retainer amount is for AOR?  I couldn't find any info on their website.

Another things is to look up which attorney's are in their network that can practice in HI.

I thought you knew everything. . .

I thought you knew everything. . .

I am very logical and objective. But like to use hypoticals, so I could not find the above info.

All jokes aside, if their retainer limit is $500K, then I would think about changing from USCCA.

Can you find out what the retainer amount is for AOR?  I couldn't find any info on their website.

Another things is to look up which attorney's are in their network that can practice in HI.

They have an office in Hawaii.

https://attorneysforfreedom.com/locations/hawaii/

I think you might be confusing AOR with other types of prepaid legal plans.

They don't pay a retainer for your lawyer.   They ARE your lawyers.  Your premiums are your retainer for the Attorneys For Freedom Law Firm.

AOR is not insurance. As such, AOR clients are not subject to the countless
exclusions included in many insurance policies. Unlike an insurance company,
AOR utilizes its own lawyers who are members of The Attorneys For
Freedom Law Firm which has been successfully representing clients in major
felony matters continuously since 1997.

As such, AOR is not merely indemnifying a client but rather providing a
legal service.

AOR is a retainer fee agreement to hire The Attorneys For Freedom Law
Firm for limited-scope legal representation in the event of a self-defense-
related incident that is reasonably expected to result in criminal charges.

Nor is AOR a prepaid legal plan or referral service as those terms are used in
Model Rule 7.2.

https://attorneysonretainer.us/faqs/

https://attorneysonretainer.us/plans/

They have an office in Hawaii.

https://attorneysforfreedom.com/locations/hawaii/

I think you might be confusing AOR with other types of prepaid legal plans.

They don't pay a retainer for your lawyer.   They ARE your lawyers.  Your premiums are your retainer for the Attorneys For Freedom Law Firm.
https://attorneysonretainer.us/faqs/

https://attorneysonretainer.us/plans/

They mentioned retainer many times. And just because a company offers X amount, doesn't mean that the attorney has to accept that amount.  Unless it's in their contract to accept X amount for any reason.  Then I would like to see that.  What no one is mentioning is this part.  Or if not about money, then maybe said lawyers in the network are too "busy" to accept your case.

AOR is the not insurance company that isn't.  Doesn't seem to be any difference in practice than an actual insurance company.

They say they'll pay for defense in criminal acts, but I'm pretty sure they won't defend you if it's legit murder or robbery.

Also a bit pricey.

AOR is the not insurance company that isn't.  Doesn't seem to be any difference in practice than an actual insurance company.

They say they'll pay for defense in criminal acts, but I'm pretty sure they won't defend you if it's legit murder or robbery.

Also a bit pricey.

I think the opposite. They will offer to pay, but finding a lawyer who will accept, esp if it has to be in their network is another issue.

AOR is the not insurance company that isn't.  Doesn't seem to be any difference in practice than an actual insurance company.

They say they'll pay for defense in criminal acts, but I'm pretty sure they won't defend you if it's legit murder or robbery.

Also a bit pricey.

Correct.  They won't defend you unless your case is in their opinion a bonafide self defense case.

However, if you are charged, tried, and convicted, unlike insurance, AOR will not claw back the money they spent defending and supporting you.  You owe AOR nothing if the jury convicts.

I think the opposite. They will offer to pay, but finding a lawyer who will accept, esp if it has to be in their network is another issue.

Did you read the FAQs?  There's nothing in any of their descriptions that says that.

AOR utilizes its own lawyers who are members of The Attorneys For Freedom Law Firm

A firm is not a network.  You're too used to the HMO style insurance and legal defense policies.

Did you read the FAQs?  There's nothing in any of their descriptions that says that.

AOR utilizes its own lawyers who are members of The Attorneys For Freedom Law Firm

A firm is not a network.  You're too used to the HMO style insurance and legal defense policies.

Yes, they do say that. But also mention "retainer".  Isn't a retainer, I give the lawyer X amount and that's the downpayment for them to defend you. So a higher profile case like Rittenhouse or even if HI wants to make an example out of you, a $50,000 retainer isn't enough. So what if what you're being charged with is estimate at say $250,000 in legal bills.  Will AOR pay the remainder to the lawyer?  Or will they guarantee that a lawyer in their network will take your case?

Or am I understanding incorrectly on how a retainer works?

I ask cause there was 1 law firm who wanted $100,000 to challenge our sensitive places law.  That's just to get started.  There would be additional cost depending how far up the lawsuit goes. 

So what I'm asking is the fine print, which I have seen USCCA's one.  I find it odd  there is no mention of the retainer amount maximum.