Texas Law Shield/ US Law Shield

[125Dad]

I'm a member and really appreciate the updates and informative emails I get from them periodically. Hope to never have to use their services but none of us ever wants to have to use our "insurance". Better to have and not need than to need and not have.

x2

[TexasBuzzard]

There is a pretty good cross-section on TBH of people who would purchase and need these services. Is there any actual recorded cases of their services being rendered? Anybody know somebody else that actually used them?

It sounds like a trap, if the grand jury decides it was self defense I am off the hook and I don't need an attorney. If the grand jury decides it wasn't self defense, the attorney won't be available to me. Or help me with my appeal.

But this does get back to the issue of having the right to defend my family and property. I have the right, but there will be consequences to exercising that right. The price is pretty high to use deadly force to protect my loved ones and property. A price I am willing to bear to tuck them into bed instead of putting flowers on a gravestone.

[hooligan]

Actually, yes I have. I am also a CHL instructor and meet with them 4-5 times a year. They are very knowledgeable on handgun law. I had left them for a short term to try the USCCA group. I didn't like the fact that I had to get my own attorney here in Houston to represent me. They have a blanket insurance that will pay for all, but after the fact. I like that with Texas Lawshield I call an actual lawyer on phone - 24/7.

So is the article correct? Do you get paid for each person who signs up through you?



As a side note I have had them for the last couple years

[hoythitman]

The point I took from it is that there is an opportunity for TLS to determine if the specific case is covered. Not that it has happened, but there is a possibility for it to happen where TLS could use any ambiguity in the contract language to deny a claim for service. What a horrible mess to find yourself in not only defending against a use of deadly force charge but also a dispute over contract language over whether TLS should foot the bill.

The other point I wasn't aware of is the fine line that exists now that self defense is protected from civil court. So if you legally used your firearm in self defense, you get a no-Bill and cannot be sued and don't need TLS. If in examining your case TLS determines that you did not legally use deadly force(or if you are found guilty?) then that isn't covered.

I didn't post that to jam up TLS, but there are apparently some contract language intricacies that folks need to be very clear about before signing up and assuming they are covered for what they think they are. That's all

This part isn't true, you can be sued in Texas for any reason, period. They can take you through the motions and if there is no new evidence you are not liable if you are justified in your shooting. But they are going to ask you lots of discovery questions, depose you, hire experts, etc... If they produce new evidence because you did not have a lawyer helping you, then you can be liable. If no new evidence is produced then you are not liable, but they can drag you around for years looking for new evidence to go after you for negligence. If you do not defend yourself you lose by default. The cost for just going through discovery and depositions alone is going to be a minimum of $5,000. I don't say all of this because I read it somewhere and I think I know what I'm talking about. I work for one of the largest Civil Litigation law firms in the State of Texas, I deal with hundreds of cases that are in civil litigation and even more that are in pre-litigation phases. The cost to prove what has already been proven can cost you tons of money.

Here is better description
A question came up in a recent CHL class on how to reconcile the statement in Texas Penal Code 9.06 that indicates that even in a justified self defensive shooting can be sued in a civil suit with Texas Penal Code 83.001 indicating that in a justified case of self defense, there is immunity from civil liability.


In Texas, anyone can sue for anything. There is nothing in the law that prevents that. All PC §9.06 is saying is that, yep, nothing in the Penal Code abolishes or impairs “any remedy for the conduct that is available in a civil suit.” So someone can sue over another’s use of force or deadly force. This language pre-dates, by a long way, the CHL laws. It was first added by the 63rd Legislature in 1973, and slightly amended by the 73rd Legislature in 1993.



Section 83.001 was added to the Civil Practice and Remedies Code by the 74th Legislature, the same year, 1995, that the CHL laws first were passed. But the wording was substantially changed by the 80th Legislature in 2007, when the so-called “Castle Doctrine” was passed as SB 378. Here’s a link to view the final text of the enrolled bill where you also can see the significant changes made to CPRC §83.001. Below is how that section read from 1995 through 2007, and the current version is below it:



CPRC §83.001 Prior to 2007 wrote:
CPRC §83.001. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the defendant, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using deadly force under Section 9.32, Penal Code, against a person who at the time of the use of force was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant.



CPRC §83.001 After 2007 wrote:
CPRC §83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant’s use of force or deadly force, as applicable.



The new version is much cleaner and, logically, encompasses the justified use of force as described in the Penal Code, period, not limited to an occurrence of unlawful entry into a habitation.



So, in essence–again, only my opinion–nothing in the law prevents someone from filing a civil lawsuit as a result of your use of force. However, if your use of force is justified under PC Chapter 9, you are immune from civil liability for personal injury or death.

[bowhunter2989]

Another one is Firearms Legal Protection. That's the actual company name. I have a policy with them. Have not had to use them yet. Also have another legal protection through department.

http://www.firearmslegal.com

[BowDude]

So is the article correct? Do you get paid for each person who signs up through you?



As a side note I have had them for the last couple years

I have gotten no payment from them. I mention to my classes that it is a good idea to have something like this. I tell them there are many to choose from and this is the one that I have chosen. I give out applications and I don't know if anyone follows up. To get paid by them I would need to collect all the information on the form, the form itself, and turn that in to my rep. I have never done that - I just give out the forms, let them fill it out on their own if they want and turn it in or call on their own. I do know that they offer a pct back on each one if I turned in the forms as they indicate - once again I don't do it that way.

[txpitdog]

@hoythitman - thank you for the additional info.

[J-Carp]

ill just rely on Q-tip ten coming to my rescue and rep me if i should end up using my weapon

[TxAg]

It's a gimmick to me. I'd rather pay for the best attorney I can get instead of getting stuck "insured" with some goober fresh out of a third tier law school. (Just guessing here )