Poll Do you have CCW insurance? / What do you use?

[Gawernator]

Like I said before, insurance companies dropping you before court because "they" think you are guilty before proven guilty is crap.
Its just how insurance works.

That’s why I use CCWsafe. But the facts were so bad for her that’s why she was dropped. Too much overwhelming evidence. Can’t really blame them for not defending a premeditated murder in cold blood.

Have they dropped anyone that didn’t murder their spouse?

 

[Gawernator]

Attorney - client privilege is lost initially when the emergency # goes to an insurance agent and not an attorney. Something for customers to think about. Conversations with the insurance agent before being connected with an attorney are not protected, so the things people say during that highly emotional time sometimes can be problematic. I encourage people to have a service that allows for immediate connection via emergency line to an attorney where those conversations are immediately protected

What’s this say? In the future you should know what you’re talking about before speaking to me and attempting to correct me. It’s less embarrassing for you rather than losing all your credibility.

Read that court ruling AOR’s lawyers and Kayla received to the class

 

[mblat1968]

Anybody had experience with FLP?

 

[Deleted member 32132]

Because of a procedural error. Lmao you thought you had a gotcha haha. She’s still dying in prison lil bro and will probably be found guilty in her second trial for the murder too.

You actually thought she was found not guilty and released from prison? lol

When did I say she was released from prison? My issue is with uscca handled the coverage.

 

[Gawernator]

When did I say she was released from prison? My issue is with uscca handled the coverage.

What issue?

USCCA's insurance policy has long contained a criminal acts exclusion, but it specifically states that the exclusion does not apply to bodily injury resulting from an act of self-defense.

The practical question becomes: Was this an act of self-defense?

Historically, that determination created controversy because the insurer could investigate and conclude that an incident was not self-defense, as happened in the Kayla Giles case. USCCA initially funded part of her defense but later withdrew coverage after concluding the claim did not involve an act of self-defense.

In response to criticism, USCCA revised its policy in late 2023. Under the updated language:

• coverage is generally available so long as your attorney has a good-faith self-defense claim and the court allows that defense to be argued, up until a final, non-appealable conviction; and
• coverage ends after a final conviction for a qualifying violent crime, rather than merely because charges were filed.

So if someone commits what is plainly an intentional, premeditated murder with no plausible self-defense claim, USCCA is not intended to insure that conduct. That's consistent with the basic principle that insurance generally cannot indemnify intentional criminal acts.

 

[Gawernator]

AOR did not “save” Kayla Giles, and the case is being heavily used as marketing

I keep seeing people say Attorneys on Retainer stepped in after USCCA abandoned Kayla Giles, took over her case, and got her murder conviction overturned.

That is not what the court record shows.

Kayla Giles was convicted of second-degree murder and obstruction of justice after shooting her estranged husband during a custody exchange. In June 2025, the Louisiana Supreme Court vacated the murder conviction because the jury received a legally improper aggressor instruction that conflicted with Louisiana’s vehicle-entry and stand-your-ground provisions. The court did not acquit her, find her factually innocent, or rule that the shooting was conclusively justified. It reversed because the trial was legally defective and remanded the case for further proceedings.

More importantly, the lawyer who handled that successful appeal was Louisiana appellate attorney Jane Catherine Hogan, not Marc Victor, Andrew Marcantel, or Attorneys on Retainer. AOR publicly discussed Giles’s case, interviewed her, spoke with some of her lawyers, criticized USCCA, and produced a large amount of content about the case. But discussing and promoting an appeal is not the same thing as litigating and winning it.

AOR’s own pre-decision material makes this distinction fairly clear when read carefully. Their December 2024 update referred to arguments being raised by Giles’s “appellate counsel” while Victor and Marcantel provided commentary and a status update. Their 2024 interview said Giles had already appealed and was awaiting action by the Louisiana Supreme Court. In other words, she already had separate appellate counsel while AOR was making videos about her.

After the reversal, however, AOR placed its own attorneys front and center in videos and articles about the “massive” victory and used the result to promote AOR over insurance-backed programs. They had also previously published content titled “Kayla Giles’ Shoot was JUSTIFIED”, followed immediately by promotion of the AOR program.

That presentation has apparently convinced a lot of people that AOR stepped in as her legal team and obtained the reversal. The actual sequence was closer to this:

• Giles was tried and convicted by other lawyers.
• Jane Hogan handled the appeal.
• AOR publicly commented on the case and interviewed Giles while Hogan’s appeal was pending.
• Hogan obtained the murder reversal.
• AOR then used the result extensively in its own marketing.
  
  There is another major detail that tends to disappear from the promotional version: Giles is still in prison.
  
  The Supreme Court left the separate obstruction-of-justice conviction unresolved and sent it back to the Third Circuit for proper review. The Third Circuit later upheld the obstruction conviction and the 30-year sentence. The basis was her handling and concealment of a laptop containing deleted self-defense research and other evidence relevant to the investigation.
  
  So she was not exonerated and released. Her murder conviction was vacated because of a jury-instruction error, while an independent felony conviction carrying a 30-year sentence remained intact.
  
  The evidence was also far more damaging than AOR’s “justified shooting” presentation suggests. The court opinions describe evidence that she:
  • conducted multiple searches about Louisiana self-defense law, concealed-carry insurance, being arrested after self-defense, and self-defense inside a vehicle;
  • attempted to erase those searches;
  • purchased a firearm shortly afterward despite being subject to a protective order;
  • gave an allegedly false answer concerning that order during the purchase;
  • transferred her laptop to her sister before the shooting;
  • later instructed that it be transferred to another person;
  • deleted other electronic material;
  • may have had the firearm already in hand as her husband approached.
    The dissenting justices believed this evidence supported the prosecution’s theory that she planned the shooting and manufactured a self-defense scenario. The majority disagreed about the jury instruction, but it did not decide that the prosecution’s evidence was insufficient or that Giles was innocent.

AOR attached its brand to the case, amplified it, and then turned the reversal into a promotional case study for its own product. Calling that “AOR stepped in and saved her” is inaccurate. A more honest description is that AOR acted as a public advocate and commentator, then heavily marketed a result achieved by someone else, while Giles remained incarcerated on a 30-year obstruction conviction.

Source: https://cases.justia.com/louisiana/third-circuit-court-of-appeal/2025-ka-0022-0665.pdf?ts=1763570209

 

[NationMostWanted]

That’s why I use CCWsafe. But the facts were so bad for her that’s why she was dropped. Too much overwhelming evidence. Can’t really blame them for not defending a premeditated murder in cold blood.

Have they dropped anyone that didn’t murder their spouse?

Can ccwsafe drop us if there is a claim or issue? I been with them for awhile but never heard about any cases

 

[Gawernator]

Can ccwsafe drop us if there is a claim or issue? I been with them for awhile but never heard about any cases

They can’t drop you for self defense

 

[Bobalover209]

AOR here. When you sign up, you sign additional paperwork because you are officially a client of their law firm. They also have a 24/7 emergency hotline that is answered by their actual attorneys for when a shoot happens. They also now cover you for criminal and civil defense.

I was looking into them, and opted for CCW safe for their higher civil liability coverage. You can get covered for $1-2 million, vs AOR only covers up to about $100k last time I checked. That was lower than I was comfortable with.

 

[Enthused]

I was looking into them, and opted for CCW safe for their higher civil liability coverage. You can get covered for $1-2 million, vs AOR only covers up to about $100k last time I checked. That was lower than I was comfortable with.

I had CCW Safe before AOR. Never had a problem with them. The only one I personally would never go with is USCCA.

 

[Bobalover209]

I had CCW Safe before AOR. Never had a problem with them. The only one I personally would never go with is USCCA.

Agreed. If I was between the base tier of CCW safe without civil liability coverage I definitely would have gone with AOR instead. I liked the multi attorney per case benefit they offered. Like you said both are good options, just depends on what you want.

 

[MK6M9]

has there been any successful case regarding outcomes? How many have used this after a firefight, and have all charges been dropped due to the insurance? i am aware of the usual insurance deflection aspect. i am aware of handfuls that were rejected at some point after paying into all this, no matter what CCW insurance company was used

 

[cali_jazz]

AOR did not “save” Kayla Giles, and the case is being heavily used as marketing

I keep seeing people say Attorneys on Retainer stepped in after USCCA abandoned Kayla Giles, took over her case, and got her murder conviction overturned.

That is not what the court record shows.

Kayla Giles was convicted of second-degree murder and obstruction of justice after shooting her estranged husband during a custody exchange. In June 2025, the Louisiana Supreme Court vacated the murder conviction because the jury received a legally improper aggressor instruction that conflicted with Louisiana’s vehicle-entry and stand-your-ground provisions. The court did not acquit her, find her factually innocent, or rule that the shooting was conclusively justified. It reversed because the trial was legally defective and remanded the case for further proceedings.

More importantly, the lawyer who handled that successful appeal was Louisiana appellate attorney Jane Catherine Hogan, not Marc Victor, Andrew Marcantel, or Attorneys on Retainer. AOR publicly discussed Giles’s case, interviewed her, spoke with some of her lawyers, criticized USCCA, and produced a large amount of content about the case. But discussing and promoting an appeal is not the same thing as litigating and winning it.

AOR’s own pre-decision material makes this distinction fairly clear when read carefully. Their December 2024 update referred to arguments being raised by Giles’s “appellate counsel” while Victor and Marcantel provided commentary and a status update. Their 2024 interview said Giles had already appealed and was awaiting action by the Louisiana Supreme Court. In other words, she already had separate appellate counsel while AOR was making videos about her.

After the reversal, however, AOR placed its own attorneys front and center in videos and articles about the “massive” victory and used the result to promote AOR over insurance-backed programs. They had also previously published content titled “Kayla Giles’ Shoot was JUSTIFIED”, followed immediately by promotion of the AOR program.

That presentation has apparently convinced a lot of people that AOR stepped in as her legal team and obtained the reversal. The actual sequence was closer to this:

• Giles was tried and convicted by other lawyers.
• Jane Hogan handled the appeal.
• AOR publicly commented on the case and interviewed Giles while Hogan’s appeal was pending.
• Hogan obtained the murder reversal.
• AOR then used the result extensively in its own marketing.
  
  There is another major detail that tends to disappear from the promotional version: Giles is still in prison.
  
  The Supreme Court left the separate obstruction-of-justice conviction unresolved and sent it back to the Third Circuit for proper review. The Third Circuit later upheld the obstruction conviction and the 30-year sentence. The basis was her handling and concealment of a laptop containing deleted self-defense research and other evidence relevant to the investigation.
  
  So she was not exonerated and released. Her murder conviction was vacated because of a jury-instruction error, while an independent felony conviction carrying a 30-year sentence remained intact.
  
  The evidence was also far more damaging than AOR’s “justified shooting” presentation suggests. The court opinions describe evidence that she:
  • conducted multiple searches about Louisiana self-defense law, concealed-carry insurance, being arrested after self-defense, and self-defense inside a vehicle;
  • attempted to erase those searches;
  • purchased a firearm shortly afterward despite being subject to a protective order;
  • gave an allegedly false answer concerning that order during the purchase;
  • transferred her laptop to her sister before the shooting;
  • later instructed that it be transferred to another person;
  • deleted other electronic material;
  • may have had the firearm already in hand as her husband approached.
    The dissenting justices believed this evidence supported the prosecution’s theory that she planned the shooting and manufactured a self-defense scenario. The majority disagreed about the jury instruction, but it did not decide that the prosecution’s evidence was insufficient or that Giles was innocent.

AOR attached its brand to the case, amplified it, and then turned the reversal into a promotional case study for its own product. Calling that “AOR stepped in and saved her” is inaccurate. A more honest description is that AOR acted as a public advocate and commentator, then heavily marketed a result achieved by someone else, while Giles remained incarcerated on a 30-year obstruction conviction.

Source: https://cases.justia.com/louisiana/third-circuit-court-of-appeal/2025-ka-0022-0665.pdf?ts=1763570209

You're overstating what the court record actually proves.

It is true that Jane Hogan was the attorney of record on the successful Louisiana Supreme Court appeal, and I don't think anyone should claim otherwise. But the published opinions don't address who funded the defense, coordinated strategy, consulted behind the scenes, or otherwise assisted the legal team. Concluding that AOR "just commented" on the case is every bit as speculative as claiming AOR personally won the appeal.

The timeline also matters. AOR didn't suddenly appear after the Supreme Court's decision to capitalize on someone else's work. They had been publicly involved with the case for years—interviewing Kayla Giles, analyzing the evidence, criticizing USCCA's decision to terminate coverage, and arguing that members deserve the presumption of innocence rather than having coverage cut off based on an insurer's assessment of the facts.

That point is especially important because USCCA Chairman Tim Schmidt publicly defended terminating coverage by stating that the evidence showed Kayla Giles had committed "premeditated murder," before any jury had reached that conclusion. Whether you agree with AOR's legal analysis or not, their position was that a self-defense legal protection program shouldn't substitute its own judgment for the judicial process.

If anyone wants to see AOR's position in context, here's one of the videos they published before the Louisiana Supreme Court vacated the murder conviction, explaining why they believed USCCA acted improperly and discussing the case in detail:

Yes, AOR has marketed the case. So has virtually every self-defense legal program when a case supports its message. Marketing a case isn't evidence that the marketing is false.

The most accurate summary is this: Jane Hogan argued the successful appeal. But the court record does not establish that AOR merely acted as a commentator or had no meaningful role in the broader defense effort. Likewise, it doesn't support the claim that AOR falsely took credit for the appeal. Both sides should stick to what the evidence actually shows.

Not sure why you seem to want to hate on AOR, like all of these providers they have their plusses and minuses.

 

[Gawernator]

You're overstating what the court record actually proves.

It is true that Jane Hogan was the attorney of record on the successful Louisiana Supreme Court appeal, and I don't think anyone should claim otherwise. But the published opinions don't address who funded the defense, coordinated strategy, consulted behind the scenes, or otherwise assisted the legal team. Concluding that AOR "just commented" on the case is every bit as speculative as claiming AOR personally won the appeal.

The timeline also matters. AOR didn't suddenly appear after the Supreme Court's decision to capitalize on someone else's work. They had been publicly involved with the case for years—interviewing Kayla Giles, analyzing the evidence, criticizing USCCA's decision to terminate coverage, and arguing that members deserve the presumption of innocence rather than having coverage cut off based on an insurer's assessment of the facts.

That point is especially important because USCCA Chairman Tim Schmidt publicly defended terminating coverage by stating that the evidence showed Kayla Giles had committed "premeditated murder," before any jury had reached that conclusion. Whether you agree with AOR's legal analysis or not, their position was that a self-defense legal protection program shouldn't substitute its own judgment for the judicial process.

If anyone wants to see AOR's position in context, here's one of the videos they published before the Louisiana Supreme Court vacated the murder conviction, explaining why they believed USCCA acted improperly and discussing the case in detail:

Yes, AOR has marketed the case. So has virtually every self-defense legal program when a case supports its message. Marketing a case isn't evidence that the marketing is false.

The most accurate summary is this: Jane Hogan argued the successful appeal. But the court record does not establish that AOR merely acted as a commentator or had no meaningful role in the broader defense effort. Likewise, it doesn't support the claim that AOR falsely took credit for the appeal. Both sides should stick to what the evidence actually shows.

Not sure why you seem to want to hate on AOR, like all of these providers they have their plusses and minuses.

Not hating at all, just setting the facts straight after seeing all the propaganda and misinformation. Deceiving people about her case has been good marketing it seems. She is a murderer. Just reading many of the top comments on that video show how misled many people are, same with the reddit posts.

 

[Gawernator]

has there been any successful case regarding outcomes? How many have used this after a firefight, and have all charges been dropped due to the insurance? i am aware of the usual insurance deflection aspect. i am aware of handfuls that were rejected at some point after paying into all this, no matter what CCW insurance company was used

There was this case, not sure what else is out there. https://ccwsafe.com/resources/ccw-s...ges-in-historic-murder-one-selfdefense-trial/

CCW Safe on Instagram: "CCW Safe provided the defense of member Stephen Maddox in the industry first, full trial of a self-defense Murder I case. Stephen was found not guilty and was able to walk out of the front doors of that courthouse. It is rare

50 likes, 2 comments - ccwsafe on July 17, 2020: "CCW Safe provided the defense of member Stephen Maddox in the industry first, full trial of a self-defense Murder I case. Stephen was found not guilty and was able to walk out of the front doors of that courthouse. It is rare for someone charged...

www.instagram.com

Pretty sure there are others

 

[cali_jazz]

Not hating at all, just setting the facts straight after seeing all the propaganda and misinformation. Deceiving people about her case has been good marketing it seems. She is a murderer.

Part of it is due to people getting their info from Google/Gemini which is where I got my bad/old info. One of the issues with AI is trying to discern what is factual vs gleaned from an old or unreliable source. None of use know all the details and we rely on Internet searches which is scary in terms of misinformation.

Is there an AI fact-check app? Maybe we could create one and get rich, but then where to we check?

 

[Gawernator]

Part of it is due to people getting their info from Google/Gemini which is where I got my bad/old info. One of the issues with AI is trying to discern what is factual vs gleaned from an old or unreliable source. None of use know all the details and we rely on Internet searches which is scary in terms of misinformation.

Is there an AI fact-check app? Maybe we could create one and get rich, but then where to we check?

It is ironic because the AI's read bad info put on forums then regurgitate it lol

 

[Hydroflask]

Someone school me on this, can a person have say, both CCW safe AND AOR? Or would they cancel each other/choose not represent. Originally interested in AOR. Looking at CCW safe after this thread peaked my interest also. My bad if this is a dumb question.

 

[Gawernator]

Someone school me on this, can a person have say, both CCW safe AND AOR? Or would they cancel each other/choose not represent. Originally interested in AOR. Looking at CCW safe after this thread peaked my interest also. My bad if this is a dumb question.

You’d think one would take priority

 

[Bobalover209]

Someone school me on this, can a person have say, both CCW safe AND AOR? Or would they cancel each other/choose not represent. Originally interested in AOR. Looking at CCW safe after this thread peaked my interest also. My bad if this is a dumb question.

Probably no harm in getting both of you can afford it. It would likely double your cost though, and may end up being redundant. For me CCW Safe pretty much covers everything I need once I added the civil liability.

We have to remember that hopefully it's something we will never have to use, and the vast majority CCW holders probably never do. It's to cover us from potential financial ruin in the slim chance it happens. Spending double on a redundant "insurance/attorney group" doesn't make sense for my situation.