The cost of defending yourself can be extremely high. Yes, it's better to be tried by 12 than carried by six and all that, but if you use a firearm to defend yourself, you may well find yourself sitting in a court of law, defending yourself, just like George Zimmerman or Kyle Rittenhouse did.

Which is why having some kind of self-defense insurance is a good thing. Otherwise, you might get a public defender which can be, at best, hit or miss.

But red flag laws are a different thing. If someone takes out a red flag order on you, you're on the hook for getting an attorney to defend you in court. Otherwise, you have to defend yourself against the allegations that you're a danger. You don't even get the public defender this time.

Which is why a new move by USCCA is interesting to me.

The U.S. Concealed Carry Association (USCCA) announced on Wednesday new enhancements to the self-defense liability insurance coverage received by its members amid a crackdown on Second Amendment protections in several Democrat-led states.

The enhancements to the insurance policy, according to USCCA, include increasing bail bond coverage to $250,000, adding up to $15,000 in attorney fees and expenses to defend members facing Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO), also known as "red flag" laws, and providing up to $5,000 in coverage to seal or expunge a member’s personal records to protect against future discrimination.

The new benefit, according to the association, will assist gun owners who are adjudicated legally in addressing reputational challenges they may have with public legal records.

"The USCCA represents hundreds of thousands of law-abiding gun owners across the country, and we have increasingly heard concerns from them about the threat of baseless ERPOs," Tim Schmidt, chairman and co-founder of the USCCA said in a statement to Fox News Digital. "We recognize there has been a concerted effort by some states and the Biden administration to increase the use and frequency of red flag laws that strip away our Constitutional rights."

"We felt it was important to update USCCA member benefits to include coverage for attorney fees and expenses to ensure our members could afford the due process they deserve," Schmidt added.

Now, this is ultimately marketing for USCCA, which we're not necessarily endorsing, but it is an interesting move and one that is arguably needed.

As it stands, one of the many issues with ERPOs is that someone can simply say you're a threat to society or yourself, you be stripped of your guns, and you get no say in the matter until after the fact. Even then, though, no one who is part of the decision is an expert in mental health, at least in most cases.

ERPOs can be issued simply because of concerns, many of which may actually be cases of things like projection or vengeance rather than legitimate issues.

And law-abiding gun owners get left holding the bag. What's more, this is bound to make them angry, which has the added "benefit" of making the ERPO potentially look more justified before a court if one isn't careful, especially without an attorney to help.

Enter USCCA's coverage.

While it's sad that such a thing is necessary, that doesn't change the fact that it is for many law-abiding gun owners, particularly those with venomously anti-gun relatives who might try to lash out by invoking an ERPO.

USCCA isn't the only self-defense insurance out there, though, which leads me to wonder how long until the other companies start offering similar coverage. 

Of course, that leads me to wonder just how that will change the landscape of ERPOs going forward, if at all. Might ERPOs suddenly start seeing negative press as they get routinely beaten in court? Could we learn that most of those being disarmed by these things be people who aren't a threat at all?

It's all possible. We'll just have to wait and see what happens.