[bwtr]

http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/

Does anyone here have a membership with this group? Just found out about it and it sound like a good premise.

 

[henryher]

I was wondering when someone was going to come up with this. With all the carry permits being issued and gun sales skyrocketing it was only a matter of time. It may be a good idea. I think its rather pricey though.

 

[SuperTrkrE2812]

Kind of sounds like that legal network for speeding tickets.
that is a rip-off.
I think i will just keep $5,000 in a savings account for Jon H. Gutmacher if i need a lawer for shooting a bad guy.
At least i know he is qualified, not some lawyer that was referred to me from someone in washington state.:rolf

 

[brownie]

Marty Hayes is a very well respected firearms instructor who has been in business longer than most. He's recently become an atty and has marshaled many national people on their advisory board like Massad Ayoob, John Farnam, Tom Givens, Dennis Tueller.

I'm sure everyone is familiar with Mas's name, and both Farnum and Givens are well respected instructors in their own areas of firearms across the U.S. http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/advisors.html

His wife Gila is a nationally recognized instructor in here own right and is well known on the shooting circuits across the country for her skills with a firearm and her courses as well.

Google Farnum, Givens and Ayoob for more history than the above link gives it you need to on these advisory board members. This non profit organization is not some hokus pokus company run by unknowns.

It's 85.00 to join, you get three dvd's on use of force [ likely one from Ayoob himself ] and you have to have a CCW license to join.

At least i know he is qualified, not some lawyer that was referred to me from someone in washington state.

I would gander to guess that the "network" here has a listing of some of the best criminal defense atty's in the country who are members of the network Marty has put together here.

Brownie

 

[Rvrctyrngr]

What Brownie said.

I addressed the creds of those involved in another thread of the same topic.

 

[Paladin]

Thanks Brownie.

It sounded expensive to me but at least its good to know that they have a good staff.

 

[brownie]

Thanks Brownie.

It sounded expensive to me but at least its good to know that they have a good staff.

I suppose the cost is relative, but 85.00 doesn't seem outrageous when one considers the potential to have funds available for your defense should you need it one day.. or the caliber of the advisory board members.

Brownie

 

[brownie]

On a related note, the site only guarantees to pay an expert to "make recommendations to that member's attorney", not necessarily pay for one's defense. When it comes to financial assistance with your case, they only say "If a member requests financial assistance, the board investigates the incident and decides how much financial assistance to grant".

I'm curious about which circumstances would warrant however much financial assistance.

Obviously that would be on a case by case basis determined by variables and specifics which could not be determined until after an incident.

Network members, by virtue of their membership, are entitled to case review by one of the Network experts and have access to contact information for Network-affiliated attorneys and expert witnesses. For this service, there is no charge beyond the Network membership fee.

hesevil,

Your statement that "the site only guarantees to pay an expert to "make recommendations to that member's attorney" is incorrect. Did you actually read their website information?.

Brownie

 

[XD-Man]

Don't overlook the American Self-Defense Institute for support, either. And it's $49.95 per year.

I'm impressed with the Armed Citizen Network, but I already belong to ASDI, and so far I'm satisfied. I haven't used them yet, and hope I never will.

 

[bwtr]

Thanks for all the opinions and info guys. :drinks

 

[brownie]

hesevil,

I asked because from your statement appeared as though you didn't understand the word entitlements?

Network members, by virtue of their membership, are entitled to case review by one of the Network experts and have access to contact information for Network-affiliated attorneys and expert witnesses. For this service, there is no charge beyond the Network membership fee.

An entitlement is a guarantee, hence you have guaranteed review of your case by the Network experts [ Ayoob alone would be worth the fee, let alone the other experts in this organization ] and guaranteed access to network affiliated atty's, where your statement stated

"the site only guarantees to pay an expert to "make recommendations to that member's attorney" which is incorrect. Membership guarantees case review by their people [ a who's who of qualified expert legal opinion across the country ] and access to their affiliated attys'.

Brownie

 

[brownie]

Once again, you are inferring something I am not implying. My original reply was all about finances and, as stated on their website, the only thing that they guarantee to pay for, is the expert advice to your attorney.

I do not understand why this has become such a big issue.

You prefer to bold "pay for" while I prefer to bold "the only thing that they guarantee" in your statement.

Your initial statement was:

On a related note, the site only guarantees to pay an expert to "make recommendations to that member's attorney", not necessarily pay for one's defense

and that is not the only guarantee the site makes.

Brownie

 

[brownie]

That syntax also contains "guarantees to pay", does it not? The "to pay for" would have been quoted along with the rest if what you are saying I meant, I meant.

Still, why do you make such a large issue of this small thing when I have done nothing incorrect? I do not understand why you are acting towards me in a seemingly aggresive manner.

It's no small thing to suggest the organization "only guarantees" when they list other equally important entitlements which are also guarantees.

I didn't suggest you did anything incorrect, I simply countered your statement of exclusivity to their singular guarantee was incorrect. Anyone thinking of joining that organization who read the exclusivity of benefits your statement suggested existed might be misinformed.

I'm not acting in an aggressive manner towards you here in any way. I do however feel it's important to make sure what a membership in the organization entitles that member to is not misstated or incomplete as it may have a bearing on ones decision to join or not.

Brownie