Tag: 2nd-amendment

News, Self Defense Insurance

Why I No Longer Recommend USCCA For Self Defense Insurance

Mark Schneider

For years, I have recommended USCCA as an option for self-defense insurance to my students. However, after seeing several concerning issues with their pricing, marketing tactics, and overall approach to supporting their members, I can no longer endorse them. If you’re considering self-defense insurance, here’s why I believe USCCA is no longer the best option and which alternatives I now recommend instead.

1. USCCA Has Gotten Too Expensive

USCCA’s membership costs have become increasingly difficult to justify. At $40 per month or $400 per year, their plans are significantly more expensive than many competitors. While they offer some benefits, the cost is simply not competitive when other companies provide similar or better coverage at a fraction of the price.

2. Shady Marketing Practices

One of my biggest issues with USCCA is their aggressive and questionable marketing tactics. They have started marketing directly to my CCW students before they even attend my class, trying to sell their insurance without my knowledge or consent. I find this incredibly unprofessional, and because of this, I will never advertise or book classes through their website again.

3. Relentless Spam and Upselling

USCCA doesn’t just market to students before class—they continue to bombard them with emails and sales pitches afterward. Many of my students have complained about the constant spam, pushing them to buy more products and services. While it’s normal for companies to market their offerings, the overwhelming frequency of USCCA’s emails is excessive and unnecessary.

4. Questionable Case Support

There have been several controversial cases where USCCA backed out of providing legal support, leaving their members stranded. In some of these cases, USCCA acted as if nothing unusual had happened, despite strong criticism from the firearms community. When you pay for self-defense coverage, you need to know your provider will stand behind you when it matters most. Unfortunately, I no longer have confidence that USCCA will do that consistently.

5. Protector Academy Isn’t Worth the Price

USCCA promotes its Protector Academy as a key benefit of membership. While it does contain some good training videos, much of the same content can be found for free on YouTube. The idea of exclusive training sounds great, but in reality, it’s not enough to justify the high membership cost when so many high-quality, free training resources are available elsewhere.

6. Customer Service Issues

There have been numerous complaints about poor customer service and difficulty canceling memberships. Some members have reported being charged even after canceling or having to go through multiple steps just to get a response from USCCA support.

7. False Sense of Security

Many people assume that just having a USCCA membership means they are completely protected in a self-defense situation. However, some of the cases they’ve backed out of show that coverage isn’t guaranteed. This false sense of security could put people in a bad situation if they end up needing legal defense.

8. USCCA’s Shift in Priorities

USCCA started as a self-defense insurance company, but over time, they’ve moved toward being more of a media company—focusing on marketing, training content, and selling products rather than actually providing solid legal protection. This shift has made many in the gun community skeptical of their true priorities.

Better Alternatives to USCCA

If you’re looking for a better and more affordable self-defense insurance option, here are two companies I now recommend:

1. Right to Bear – $13/month

Right to Bear offers comprehensive legal coverage at a fraction of USCCA’s cost. At just $13 per month, it’s a much more affordable option for concealed carriers who want peace of mind without breaking the bank.

2. Firearms Legal Protection (FLP) – $10/month

FLP provides strong self-defense legal protection for as little as $10 per month, making it one of the most budget-friendly choices available. They have a solid reputation for standing behind their members when legal trouble arises.

Check Out My Self-Defense Insurance Comparison Chart

I’ve put together a detailed self-defense insurance comparison chart on my website, where you can see how different providers stack up against each other.

If you’re serious about protecting yourself legally, take a look at the options available and make an informed decision. The right coverage could make all the difference when it matters most.

News

South Dakota’s Bold Move to Expand Gun Rights

Mark Schneider

In a powerful show of support for Second Amendment rights, South Dakota’s Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden signed into law several landmark bills that radically expand gun freedoms across the state. From allowing concealed carry in bars to bringing firearms onto college campuses, these new laws are a massive win for anyone who believes in the right to defend themselves.

Rhoden’s rallying cry for these bills? “One of my favorite things about South Dakota is how much we respect freedom — especially our Second Amendment freedom.” And it’s clear he’s walking the walk, making it easier than ever for responsible citizens to exercise their rights.

Freedom on Campus and Beyond

One of the most headline-grabbing aspects of the new legislation is the expansion of concealed carry onto state university and technical college campuses. Now, those with enhanced permits or reciprocal permits from other states can carry their concealed pistols, provided they’ve passed background checks and completed a handgun course. And it’s not just for adults—this is open to individuals as young as 18, making sure the next generation has the freedom to protect themselves.

But, of course, there are safeguards in place. Pistols and ammunition must be stored in locked cases when not in use, and certain sensitive areas, like labs with hazardous materials or areas requiring security clearance, remain firearm-free zones. Still, the broader message is clear: freedom should be the default.

The Repeal of the Ban on Carrying in Bars: A Win for Personal Liberty

The other big shift? The repeal of the ban on concealed carry in bars. This change stirred up plenty of controversy, especially among small business owners who feel they weren’t given a fair chance to voice their concerns. Nathan Sanderson, of the South Dakota Retailers Association, pointed out that bar owners deserved more input before the law passed. But Gov. Rhoden, unwavering in his support of personal rights, wasn’t backing down.

“It’s unfortunate that this change didn’t even get a committee hearing,” Sanderson said. But Rhoden responded with confidence, recalling similar fears surrounding constitutional carry laws passed previously. Those laws, he pointed out, didn’t result in chaos or the disastrous consequences predicted by opponents. Instead, South Dakota continues to stand firm in its commitment to empowering individuals to protect themselves—and that means carrying in bars if they so choose.

The Stats and the Facts

After the constitutional carry law passed in 2019, gun-related deaths did rise for a time, with suicides being the leading cause of firearm fatalities. Still, Rhoden remains resolute. Just because gun rights expand doesn’t mean safety goes out the window. The fight for freedom is about the fundamental right to carry—something Rhoden and many South Dakotans hold sacred, even if it raises some tough questions along the way.

A Step Further: Guns in Vehicles on School Grounds

The new laws also allow concealed carry permit holders to keep their firearms in vehicles parked on school grounds. It’s just one more move that solidifies South Dakota’s stance on gun rights, making sure citizens can defend themselves no matter where they are.

Rhoden Takes On Federal Restrictions

Not stopping there, Rhoden also sent a bold message to Washington. He sent a letter to the U.S. Attorney General and the head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, urging them to do away with the seven-day waiting period for purchasing firearms and accessories across state lines. This is a direct challenge to federal gun laws that restrict freedom—and South Dakota is putting its foot down.

News

Three Landmark Supreme Court Decisions That Protect Your Right to Own and Carry Firearms

Mark Schneider

Over the years, several key Supreme Court decisions have shaped and reinforced the Second Amendment rights of Americans. In particular, District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), McDonald v. Chicago (2010), and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) have set significant legal precedents regarding the right to own and carry firearms. These rulings have not only affirmed the individual’s right to bear arms but have also made it clear that state and local governments cannot infringe on this constitutional right.

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

The Heller decision was the first major case in modern history to interpret the Second Amendment as protecting an individual’s right to possess firearms. At the center of this case was Washington D.C.’s ban on handguns, which effectively prohibited most residents from owning or carrying a handgun within their home. The Supreme Court ruled that this ban was unconstitutional and that individuals have the right to possess firearms, specifically for self-defense.

This ruling is crucial because it established that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own a firearm, not just in the context of militia service. The Court made it clear: owning a handgun for personal protection is a fundamental right, one that cannot be taken away by the government without violating the Constitution.

McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

Two years after Heller, the Supreme Court extended this protection to state and local governments with the McDonald decision. Chicago had its own handgun ban, similar to the one struck down in Heller. The question in this case was whether the Second Amendment applied to states and municipalities, not just the federal government.

The Court held that the Second Amendment, as interpreted in Heller, applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. This decision made it clear that no state or city can deny individuals their right to own a handgun for self-defense. McDonald was a pivotal moment in the fight for gun rights, ensuring that local laws banning or severely restricting firearms ownership could not stand in the face of constitutional protections.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022)

The most recent and perhaps the most far-reaching decision came in Bruen. In this case, New York had a law that required individuals to show “proper cause” to get a permit to carry a concealed firearm in public. Essentially, unless you could prove you had a special need for self-defense, your permit application could be denied. The Supreme Court struck down this law, ruling that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.

The Bruen decision invalidated similar laws across the country that gave local authorities discretion over who could carry a firearm in public. The Court emphasized that the Second Amendment does not limit the right to bear arms to one’s home but extends to carrying firearms in public for lawful purposes. This was a major victory for gun owners, particularly in states and cities that had imposed strict regulations on public carry.

The Impact of These Decisions

Together, these three decisions have created a robust legal framework that protects your right to own and carry firearms. The Heller ruling established that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to possess firearms. McDonald ensured that states and cities cannot override this right, and Bruen made it clear that the right to carry firearms in public is constitutionally protected.

These rulings have rendered many restrictive local and state gun control measures invalid, particularly those that sought to limit concealed carry or impose undue burdens on law-abiding citizens. For example, cities like New York, which once heavily restricted the issuance of concealed carry permits, are now required to issue permits to applicants who meet basic legal requirements without imposing arbitrary standards.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court decisions in Heller, McDonald, and Bruen have strengthened the protections provided by the Second Amendment, affirming that individuals have the right to own firearms for self-defense and carry them in public. These landmark rulings ensure that states and cities cannot infringe on this fundamental right, making it clear that your right to bear arms is protected both at home and in public.

Gun owners must remain vigilant in the fight to protect their Second Amendment rights, as this battle will never truly be over. Anti-gun laws and regulations continue to surface, threatening our ability to defend ourselves and exercise our constitutional rights. I highly recommend joining organizations like Rocky Mountain Gun Owners (RMGO) here in Colorado to ensure your voice is heard. National organizations like the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR), and Gun Owners of America (GOA) are also excellent allies in this fight. By joining these groups, you can help protect your rights and ensure that the government doesn’t infringe on your freedom to bear arms.