°
forecast

Former AG Cuccinelli starts law firm for gun rights

RICHMOND

If you’re a law-abiding gun owner, former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli would like to be your lawyer - for less than $10 a month.

Cuccinelli and three partners have launched Virginia Self Defense Law, a firm focused on defending Second Amendment rights. With bargain-basement pricing and a cheeky slogan - “Defending those who defend themselves” - the venture seeks to tap into a feeling among some gun owners that the right to bear arms is under attack.

“A legal retainer with Virginia Self Defense Law costs as little as $8.33 a month - less than half the cost of a hunting license,” the firm’s website says. “Don’t be a victim! Don’t let these realities become your family’s fiscal nightmare!”

For that price, the firm promises to defend clients facing firearms charges stemming from an act of self defense and those who have been “harassed by law enforcement for lawfully carrying their weapon.”

The firm’s website links to news stories about cases in which gun owners were charged with crimes, under headlines such as “Man arrested in front of his son for ‘rudely displaying weapon’ “ and “Burglar’s family awarded $300,000 in wrongful death suit.” One of the stories featured is about the legal bills racked up by George Zimmerman, the Florida man acquitted in July in the shooting death of an unarmed teenager.

“All of us . . . can name cases we know of in various places where really outrageous things went on just to torment lawful, law-abiding gun owners,” Cuccinelli said in an interview. “We’re filling a market need.”

State Sen. Thomas Garrett Jr., R-Louisa, one of Cuccinelli’s partners in the venture, came up with the idea of offering their services by way of an inexpensive retainer. It’s a pricing strategy that has been tried in Texas, and a few outfits provide something like that on a national basis. But Cuccinelli said the national groups will find their client a lawyer - probably a low-priced one - when the need arises.

In the case of his new firm, Cuccinelli said, the clients already know whom they’re getting: A former attorney general who was also the Republican nominee for governor last year; Garrett, who is a former Louisa County prosecutor; and two lawyers in partnership with them, Graven Craig and Torrey Williams.

“It’s not insurance. It’s a retainer plan. But it gives you peace of mind knowing ultimately if something happens, you’ve got that coverage,” Garrett said.

Gun owners who pay the monthly fee can count on the firm’s lawyers to represent them for free in court in self-defense and right-to-carry cases. If they pick up a weapons charge while dealing drugs or engaging in some other sort of illegal activity, all bets are off. The firm has an out through what Cuccinelli calls the “sex, drugs, rock-n-roll clause.”

Most national plans cap legal fees, Garrett said. The firm has no limit, though clients would have to post their own bond if necessary and foot the bill for any expert witness fees.

“If it takes you a year (to fight a charge), we’re there,” Garrett said. “Worst-case scenario, I don’t make a lot of money one year.”

The firm has been advertising at Washington area gun shows and has attracted about 30 clients since launching this month. Cuccinelli has not attended the shows because the crowd would probably want to talk politics, he said. But the other members of the firm bring along “cardboard Ken,” a cutout, to draw attention.

Cuccinelli, a father of seven, is not relying entirely on Virginia Self Defense Law to support his family. Since leaving office in January, he has been building a separate law practice, Cuccinelli and Associates, that will focus on constitutional law, complex civil litigation and health-care fraud.

But the former attorney general thinks that even with the bargain retainers, the self-defense firm could pay off because gun owners generally stay out of trouble.

“The people who took out concealed-handgun permits in Virginia were universally far more law abiding statistically than the average population,” he said.

Posted to: Guns News Politics Virginia

How to be civil in comments:

 No name-calling, personal insults or threats. No attacks based on race, gender, ethnicity, etc. No writing with your Caps Lock on – it's screaming. Keep on topic and under 1500 characters. No profanity or vulgarity. Stay G- or PG-rated. Read the full rules here.

grin & bear it

I have a feeling the only thing better than a good guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun and an attorney on retainer.

I'm not sure how this isn't

I'm not sure how this isn't a violation of Virginia Legal Ethics Opinions on retainers? LEOs 1178 or 1322 for starters.

A question of future fee or retainer.

If the $10 is to assure that the lawyer is available, then it is "earned" when paid, and is thus taxable. If they deem it part of a future fee, then it is placed in trust to be applied at the time of service.

Believe this, lawyers have no excuse for an ethics violation. They change the ethic to suit the situation.

Isn't it really insurance?

Rather than a retainer, could this not be considered an insurance premium against a future possible need for representation?

Auto insurance, for example, promises to defend you in the case of a liability claim.

All the legal defense you need for under $10

A man who has himself for a lawyer has a fool for a client.
A man who hires a lawyer for $10 bucks has a fool for a lawyer.

What else could Ken do? He lost every case when he was AG,

He was Virginia's very own lawyer's version of Barney Fife.

Democrats loved him, he was the gift that kept on giving.

Fair Point -- even if you only see it from one side

But at least Mr. (no longer "AG") Cuccinelli is limiting his crusading ways to the private sector.

Too bad that AG Herring has opted to pick up on Mr. Cuccinelli's worst habits, only from the progressive side.

Too bad that so many of you on the progressive side of things are too partisanly blinded to recognize the mirror-image problem.

"Cuccinelli's worst habits"

Not many complaints from conservatives while Cucc was conducting those " worst habits".

Not at all True

The electoral loss suffered by Ken Cuccinelli to Terry McAuliffe was substantially larger than the electoral difference in the statewide votes cast for lt. governor and attorney general. (This difference is even more stark when you consider what a huge amount of his own personal baggage Gov. McAuliffe brought to the table -- can you say "visas for sale"?)

The difference, I believe, is that a large number of conservatives were unwilling to support AG Cuccinelli, whose stated policy positions they agreed with but whose "bad habits" they could not abide. Progressives showed no equivalent discretion when it came to now-Gov. McAuliffe.

Bottom line, conservatives (at least some of them) have principles. Progressives, on the whole, do not.

Comment deleted

Comment removed for rules violation. Reason: Personal attack, name calling

View

Anything but face the facts? There is ALWAYS some reason if you think hard enough about it why "conservatives" lose elections. It couldn't possibly be that their rhetoric, their ideas and their priorities in office are just plain unpopular. In this case McAuliffe won because conservatives have principles and progressives don't. Yeah. Sure.

"have principles"

Now that's funny!

Hmmm - interesting concept.

Hmmm - interesting concept. I like the idea and will surely investigate the details further.

The new AG actually viewed the US constitution when weighing

The new AG actually viewed the US constitution when weighing the responsibility of his position and acted accordingly. I would say Herring should now tackle Virginia's ethical concerns regarding the State bar; local judges such as those who reside in say Norfolk in Chief Justice position. Since Cuccinelli has gone the strength of consistency to Virginia law as it pertains to the constitution now exists but there is a fair bit to tackle in cleaning up the mess of Gov Bob and his evangelical cohorts.It does seem clear the former AG will be representing the bevy of his contrary nature. Men's right to rape, gun rights and repression of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Maybe he should have represented

Zimmerman.

Ten buck lawyer?

Brings to mind the old saying, "We don't mind if someone sells (insert product) for less. After all, they know what their (product) is worth!

Well, as they say about motorcycle helmets...

A $50 helmet for a $50 head.

...and I will give you a

...and I will give you a penny for your thoughts.

Good one...

In the sixties, Bell Helmets had an add, if memory serves me, "If you have a ten dollar head buy a ten dollar helmet."

A few years ago bought a M/C and ended-up buying a $400 plus helmet...yep, for my-most-likely ten dollar head.

And, so it goes....

Dang..

add should be ad....

wow...

Good one...

In the sixties, Bell Helmets had an add, if memory serves me, "If you have a ten dollar head buy a ten dollar helmet."

A few years ago bought a M/C and ended-up buying a $400 plus helmet...yep, for my-most-likely ten-dollar head.

And, so it goes....

HOW ABOUT DEFENDING THE ANIMALS?

How about using his high powered Repub.position to defend some animals from the animal cruelty inflicted by these same gun owners who don't know the difference between the right to own a gun and the right to shoot it?The problem with gun rights is most of these gun nuts cling to their guns like a security blanket,a woobie,then make up scenarios in which to shoot someone or any animal that crosses their path.They are people with inferiority complexes who think they are in danger all the time.They try to scare people by taking them out and playing with them.Then some child playing in the woods or some innocent animal gets a bullet!Let the scared babies have them just don't let them take it out of their homes.Real men carry k-bars-sword of GOD

"Real men carry k-bars"...

between their teeth.
Real men don't need no stinkin' sheath.

Don't forget your leather gloves for when you are playing with those hungry feral cats. They just may not understand your sweetheart motives. Better yet, keep that k-bar between your teeth.

Out of curiosity

I wonder if anyone has ever done a follow-up study on those people who have used their guns to thwart potential violence. Not the folks who never have done so and say they wouldn't be affected, but those who actually have. I wonder what their state of mind is, knowing they have killed or seriously injured a person. George Zimmerman, for example, seems to have pretty much gone to pieces. Or Michael Dunn, also in Florida. Locally, Bernell Benn.
I expect to get a lot of responses to the effect of "Well it wouldn't bother ME any!" But an actual study would be interesting.

There may be a difference

Were the need for me to shoot someone in self-defense, and, as a result of my pulling the trigger, that person died, there would be mixed feelings on my part.

There would be sorrow for having to take a life, but there would be no regrets if it came to weighing their life against my life or the lives of family, friends, or bystanders. There can be sorrow without regret.

I see your point and I, too,

I see your point and I, too, would take no pleasure in killing an intruder, or someone who threatened me or a loved one.

In fact, I would be far less likely to shoot, if, for example, I were home alone. Heck, I would probably let someone loot my home, if it was just me and the intruder, and I did not perceive a threat to my life.

Conversely, if a loved one was sleeping in the next room, I would not hesitate to squeeze the trigger.

Thanks....

Thanks for your comment. It's well reasoned and shows an appreciation for the value of a life.

You are definitely not one of the give-me-my-10%-off-on-the-pizza crowd.

Yes, I know I will get thumbs down only.

And, so it goes in the world of guns.

You folks stay warm and have a good day....

Many reports

There are many such reports.

?

Not doubting you, but can you cite at least one?

truthseeker: ...totally flawed thought process...

...each case you've mentioned was criminally prosecuted, and for good reasons. First, most people who stop an attack on themselves or others never shoot anybody, they simply dislay the firearm. I have personal experience doing that, and my elderly disabled mother did it twice. Second, most legal use of firearms are "no billed" and never go to trial. As far as actually shooting someone, you never want to do that, it's a last resort after all other self-protection steps failed.

As I expected,

All responses were of the "If it were me" genre, and none of the "It happened to me" references.

truthseeker: ...???...

...guess you didn't read my post right above your recent one. Guess it doesn't fit your preconceived anti-gun notions. Sorry, but that did happen to me and my mother in Portsmouth. The cases you mentioned were all prosecuted as criminal acts, not legitimate defensive use of a firearm. As the other posters and me indicated, most use of firearms for protection are never prosecuted because they're legal according to the police and District Attorney, and most of the time nobody is shot, as in my family's cases.

I'll try again

What I was looking for was information concerning the feelings and reactions from people other than military or law enforcement who have actually shot and killed someone. Not what happened TO them, prosecution, etc, but their own personal feelings and reactions.
As for "preconceived notions", I grew up on a farm, hunted rabbit, pheasant: Have no objections to people owning guns. My objection is to those who leave loaded guns laying around unsecured where children can get to them, or who use guns as a pretext to confront people unnecessarily.

Ken scores the big time money $$$

Ken skates and is now milkin' it after Bob was caught.

Some folks have better luck, or lawyers.

Sorry

I wouldn't want Ken to defend me for the price of a Big Gulp.

Virginia literally dodged a bullet with the failure of Cuccinelli's bid for Governor.

I wonder if they offer a family discount

When there is a weapon in the home it's seven times more likely to kill a family member (via accident or suicide) than it is to kill an intruder.

That is a bogus statistic,

That is a bogus statistic, and you know it.

Actually I don't

In my home town of Milwaukee the ratio is 24 to 1 based on statistically valid, peer-reviewed research. Nationwide the ration is 2.7 to 1. The 7 to 1 ratio is for major cities. Half of all suicides and 73% of family-on-family homicides are facilitated by a gun in the home. Over 32,000 Americans die each year from gun violence. How many innocent lives are your 2nd Amendment rights worth? How many deaths are too many?

OliverWHomey: ...2nd amendment rights are priceless to me...

...and my family. My disabled elderly mother twice protected herself by legally displaying a firearm in Portsmouth and I stopped a home invasion in my apartment in Portsmouth by displaying a firearm (the fastest the police responded was 23 minutes after they were called). I'll never agree with the shameful tactics of people who hide behind the victims of crime, accidents and suicides in an attempt to prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves.

HM

No one ever claims that guns NEVER help deter a crime. Obviously, they sometimes do. But the simple fact remains - it is more dangerous to live in a home where guns are present than to live in a home that does not have any.

I would also add that citing this fact is not the same as calling for the banning of guns. I understand your confusion on this point. Any mention of better regulation of guns, the people who have easy access to them or the inherent dangers they present is ALWAYS immediately spun as gun confiscation by NRA propagandists. ANYTHING that might inhibit gun sales even a little bit has to be denounced.

paulmmurphy: ...oops!!!...you just gave yourself away...

...you said,"ANYTHING that might inhibit gun sales even a little bit has to be denounced." You want to stop gun sales, got it! The goal of gun-hate groups since the 60's always has been ban, register, then confiscate, using phony studies, polls and tragic criminal acts. It's being tried in Connecticut now. It's much more dangerous to live in a home with no firearms when criminals who know you're there break in, with police minutes away. That happened to me, it was scary but I was armed and stopped the attack. You're welcome to try prayer, give the criminals a hug, a book, or some candy. Hope that works for you until the police arrive, if you had time to call them. You can tell them guns are bad, too!

HM - Yes I gave myself away

I WOULD like to inhibit gun sales to criminals and lunatics. The owners of the NRA (the gun manufacturers and importers) like the current system where just about anyone can buy a trunk load of hand guns and re-sell them to ANYBODY on the street. Anybody with any sense does not like that part of our current system. Even the NRA used to support universal background checks - until they got the word from their masters to change their tune.

With 300 million guns in private homes...

it's a miracle that anyone is alive in the US.

Milwaukee is the Pits. No wonder you moved south.
Population 599,395
Milwaukee Crime Data Crime Data FAQ
CRIME INDEX 4 (100 is safest) Safer than 4% of the cities in the US.

Milwaukee Annual Crimes
VIOLENT PROPERTY TOTAL
7,762 30,643 38,405
annual crimes per 1,000 residents
12.95 51.12 64.07
Here is a funny one. There are 395 crimes per square mile in Milwaukee.
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/wi/milwaukee/crime/

Bogus statistic?

Not according to the American Journal of Epidemiology and the Johns Hopkins researchers who published the study. Oh, wait a minute. "Bogus" means facts that you don't like. My bad.

paulmmurphy: crime isn't a disease, Medical groups should...

...focus on real diseases and epidemics. Instead they create politicized junk "studies" funded by millions in Federal taxes with demonstrably false methods and results, then spread as fact by gun-haters. A bipartisan law stopped that waste in 96 until Democrat Barack Obama in 2013 issued an executive order to fund a CDC study on gun violence; this time it backfired. "Gun crime and homicides down, firearm-related death rates for ages 15-19 declined from 94 to 09 and unintentional firearm-related deaths steadily declined during the past century and accounted for less than 1% of all unintentional fatalities in 2010, defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence (10 to 1 ratio).”  Ignored by media, Democrats & gun-haters.

Gun Homicides and suicides

may not be "real diseases" but more than 30,000 lives a year are cut short by them each year. But YOU say that it is wrong to learn more about their causes and prevention? Quite a hole you have dug yourself into there.

paulmmurphy: ...nope...wrong again....what you are...

...shoveling has nothing to do with holes in the ground. None of the fake studies address real solutions, they just go after the inanimate object and aim to restrict Rights of law-abiding citizens. No mental health or criminal concerns. Democrats love criminals, they never want them punished, they don't want them in prison, they want all prisoners released early (Gov Jerry Brown, D-CA released 1,400 lifers early already, most are murderers). The goal of universal checks always was de facto registration. When instant checks became law, the Federal government had to force States (Pennsylvania is one) to destroy instant check data because they illegally kept it to create a registry of gun owners. Democrats still want to do that.

Comment deleted

Comment removed for rules violation. Reason: Off topic

Interesting.....

Insurance companies thrive because of large numbers.

Who? What type of person will signup for this "service"?

I surely don't know. However, possibly the type of person who may feel the need.

I would imagine few insurance companies allow adverse selection.....insuring only those who seemingly have a somewhat immediate need for the insurance.

With just a few folks signing up for his service, they may well fall victim (no pun) to adverse selection.

I don't think 30 or so subscribers will foot the bill for a jay walking ticket, much less a charge of shooting someone.

But, hey, what the heck do I know?

My guess would be . . . .

This is a good program for anyone who owns or carries guns for self-defense, which, in Virginia, is a lot of people.

good for Ken

With all the negative press lately about gun ownership, nice to see a positive story.

The NRAI sould run from kenny. He is for a bunch

When was the last time kenny won a constitutional case, or any case he personally litigated.

should be 0 for a bunch

The pilot and their weird rules blocked c***ch

Lot's of commenters couldn't

Lot's of commenters couldn't wait to get Cucinelli out of office (I agree with that part) and now they complain about what he does in private life.

Lawyers for Gun Rights

Well, it is about time we can finally obtain the services of a respected law firm to protect the rights of citizens who firmly believe in the 2nd Amendment, to wit: the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. As a member of the USCCA,I already have this benefit which I paid for, but I will look into this law firm,since it is a Virginia Firm. I read the Editorials this morning, and a gentleman made the case for those who support the 2nd Amendment. He was right, in saying that guns don't kill people, people pull the trigger on guns to kill people. Guns are not the criminal,people are the criminals in society. If someone wants to kill you bad enough, they will find a way. We need to stop trying to tear up our Constitution. It there for a reason.

Thugs with guns on the tide and around town

I rode the Tide recently and a thug in gangster clothes had a visible Glock gun straped to his belt that frightened me so much that I got off the train and reported it only to be told that it was legal. Are you ready for this kind of equal and oposite reaction.

tomjefforhisson: ...yes, I'm ready...

...as long as law-abiding citizens are legally carrying, I could care less what they look like. The person you described has every right to protect himself and his family, too.

culture shock, maybe it's best you stay indoors

You judge people on how they dress as to whether they are a thug or not? Any chance to him being black as well?

Leaving the house must be a tough one for you.

Was he wearing "gangster

Was he wearing "gangster clothes" like these?

http://votingamerican.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/gangster-government-kissing-the-godfather-s-ring-political-poster-13039994603.jpg

A little off topic, but worth mentioning

In the course of trying to link on to get three coffeecakes ready's internet offering he provided (which wouldn't come up BTW) I accidently put him on a ignore all comments from this user list.

This is very easy to do by accident, without you ever knowing, I've done it accidently at least a half dozen times over the years.

The Pilot also made it near impossible to correct for some reason. I encourage people to do the following: Go to the top of this list of comments, above the web offerings and the "You May Like" ads to where it lists the number of comments to this article and the "add a new comment" in blue. If to the right of this you see a heading of " manage your list of ignored commenters", you have somebody(s) on your ignore list.

I just now verified the link

I just now verified the link I posted.

It's valid with my browser - with or without proxy.

that is one long web address

Tried your connection again, this time instead of no results whatsoever, it gave me a link back to this very article and PilotOnline.com.

Perhaps my AVG security enhanced browser is not allowing me access. I so wanted to see what it is exactly that defines a thug by looking at his apparel.

Strange - I use AVG, too. In

Strange - I use AVG, too.

In any case, in the photo, the thug's apparel is a $2,500 suit.

"thug"

A new buzzword for 'black'.

What a nice advertisement

How charitable of the Pilot to print such a nice advertisement for this new law firm. Clearly, Pilot isn't biased on the issue.

These terribly put upon gun owners

Such victims. Hardy har.

Man Fatally Shoots Himself While Teaching Gun Safety To Girlfriend
10 Injured After Shotgun Goes Off At Illinois Sportsman's Club
Father Injures Two Kids With Shotgun During Domestic Dispute
Accidental Shooting Critically Injures Woman in Leg
Boy, 9, killed in apparent accidental shooting in Mattapan
BART officer killed by partner in apparent accidental shooting
6-year-old boy dies after N.J. accidental shooting
3-year-old in stable condition after accidental shooting
Durham man charged with infant's accidental shooting
Man accidentally discharges firearm inside bar
Woman Injured in Accidental Shooting
FSU Student Sentenced to 20 Years in Accidental Shooting
Father Arrested in Accidental Shooting of Son

Congressional Study: Murder

Congressional Study: Murder Rate Plummets as Gun Ownership Soars

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32842.pdf

Disarming Realities: As Gun Sales Soar, Gun Crimes Plummet

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/

Feel the plummet

I referenced gun "accidents" from 2nd amendment celebrating careful gun owners. Your links dont cover the same thing.

...the facts: ...official bureau of justice statistics. ..

...reveal child firearms fatalities dropped 56% and gun violence dropped 40% while handgun ownership increased 216%.

gun loving liberal

You have to give Ken credit where credit is due here, he knows a good thing when he sees it. This will probably make him rich and he won't hardly have to lift a finger for it.

This is Virginia after all, outside of Texas we're gun capital of the USA. And I'm not saying that in a disparaging way mind you, it defines this country as being truly free. When they come for your guns, kiss your constitutional rights and any semblance of being free goodbye.

Now excuse me, I have to go hug a tree.

Comment deleted

Comment removed for rules violation. Reason: Racial, ethnic, group attack

You are correct - but when

You are correct - but when they When they come for your guns, you must use your guns to defend your constitutional rights.

After all, that is the intent of the 2nd Amend.

Sic transit gloria

Kind of a comedown for the former Attorney General and would-be Governor, reduced now to fleecing the yokels out of 9 bucks a pop for some sort of ersatz "legal" arrangement. Betcha that if in the unlikely event that Mr. Cuccinelli actually has to litigate on behalf of one of his clients that the tab will be significantly higher.

I'll be looking for Mr. Cuccinelli's Lowell Stanley-style TV ads alongside the gold and survivalist hucksters and all those who sell fear and outrage to the fearful and outraged.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Please note: Threaded comments work best if you view the oldest comments first.

Daily Deal |  | Promote your business
Partners