Law of Self Defense
128 FOLLOWERS
Attorney Andrew F. Branca's weekly plain-English legal educational News and Question & Answer show on American use-of-force law--self-defense, defense of others, and defense of property, to enable law-abiding people to make better informed, more confident, more decisive, and more lawful use-of-force decisions.
Law of Self Defense
5h ago
In this video, we explore the 1939 US Supreme Court decision in US v. Miller, which was the Court's first substantive ruling on the Second Amendment.
The case involved Jack Miller and Frank Layton, two individuals with criminal histories, who never appeared in court to argue their side against the Federal government.
The decision ultimately ruled that the Second Amendment only protected firearms that were useful to a militia. Fast forward to today, where gun control groups argue the opposite - that the Second Amendment protects only non-military style firearms.
This contrast with modern Suprem ..read more
Law of Self Defense
5h ago
Today's show is Part 2 of 2 of our reading of the law review article "The Peculiar Story of United States v. Miller," by attorney and legal scholar Brian L. Frye.
In 1939, the US Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision in US v. Miller, shaping the interpretation of the Second Amendment.
This case ruled that the Amendment only protected firearms useful to a militia, sparking debates that continue to this day. Ironically enough, contemporary gun control groups argue the opposite viewpoint, claiming that the Second Amendment only safeguards weapons that are not designed for war.
Interest ..read more
Law of Self Defense
2d ago
Today's show is Part 1 of 2 of our reading of the law review article "The Peculiar Story of United States v. Miller," by attorney and legal scholar Brian L. Frye.
In 1939, the US Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision in US v. Miller, shaping the interpretation of the Second Amendment.
This case ruled that the Amendment only protected firearms useful to a militia, sparking debates that continue to this day. Ironically enough, contemporary gun control groups argue the opposite viewpoint, claiming that the Second Amendment only safeguards weapons that are not designed for war.
Interest ..read more
Law of Self Defense
6d ago
In this episode, we delve into the landmark 1966 US Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona, which gave rise to the famous "Miranda rights" that are now a staple of police procedures in the United States.
Surprisingly, this crucial decision was a close 5-to-4 ruling by the Supreme Court, a fact that is not widely known to the public.
Join Attorney Andrew Branca as he breaks down the majority opinion and the three powerful dissents in the Miranda v. Arizona case. In this Part 4 of 4 Andrew reads the third and final dissenting opinion.
Gain a deeper understanding of the legal reasoning behind this ..read more
Law of Self Defense
6d ago
In this episode, we delve into the landmark 1966 US Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona, which gave rise to the famous "Miranda rights" that are now a staple of police procedures in the United States.
Surprisingly, this crucial decision was a close 5-to-4 ruling by the Supreme Court, a fact that is not widely known to the public.
Join Attorney Andrew Branca as he breaks down the majority opinion and the three powerful dissents in the Miranda v. Arizona case. In this Part 3 of 4 Andrew reads the first two dissenting opinions.
Gain a deeper understanding of the legal reasoning behind this hist ..read more
Law of Self Defense
1w ago
In this episode, we delve into the landmark 1966 US Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona, which gave rise to the famous "Miranda rights" that are now a staple of police procedures in the United States.
Surprisingly, this crucial decision was a close 5-to-4 ruling by the Supreme Court, a fact that is not widely known to the public.
Join Attorney Andrew Branca as he breaks down the majority opinion and the three powerful dissents in the Miranda v. Arizona case. In this Part 1 of 4 Andrew reads the second half of the majority opinion.
Gain a deeper understanding of the legal reasoning behind thi ..read more
Law of Self Defense
1w ago
In this episode, we delve into the landmark 1966 US Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona, which gave rise to the famous "Miranda rights" that are now a staple of police procedures in the United States.
Surprisingly, this crucial decision was a close 5-to-4 ruling by the Supreme Court, a fact that is not widely known to the public.
Join Attorney Andrew Branca as he breaks down the majority opinion and the three powerful dissents in the Miranda v. Arizona case. In this Part 1 of 4 Andrew reads the first half of the majority opinion.
Gain a deeper understanding of the legal reasoning behind this ..read more
Law of Self Defense
1w ago
Today we discuss the troubling reporting of a road-rage incident in which one woman shot both another woman and that other woman’s daughter—both shooting victims survived.
The media has been reporting on this event with headlines like this: “No charges for woman who wounded mother, daughter.”
The local police department did request from prosecutors an arrest warrant for the shooter. Yet no such warrant was granted.
Why not? Surely an out-of-control driver who puts bullets into a mother and daughter simply MUST be held legally accountable, no?
Buried deep in the me ..read more
Law of Self Defense
1w ago
In June 2022, Mark Winger, a Texas gun store employee, shot a fleeing thief in the back and was initially charged with murder.
However, last week he agreed to a plea bargain deal of eight years deferred adjudication.
Despite Texas allowing deadly force in defense of property, there are specific conditions that must be met to stay within the law.
Join us as we examine why the Texas justification of defense of property likely did not apply in this case and why Winger's plea deal was a fortunate outcome for him.
Learn more about the complexities of self-defense laws in ..read more
Law of Self Defense
2w ago
In today's Part 2 we read the dissent from Ohio v. Wilson.
Ohio man Tyler Wilson got into a gas station verbal argument with one Billy Reffet. The argument escalated to the point that Wilson felt obliged to fire warning shots into the night sky, claiming he'd intended to merely frighten Reffet off, rather than to harm him.
Wilson would be charged with attempted murder and felonious assault. At trial he attempted to raise the legal defense of self-defense, but the trial judge rejected that request on the grounds that Wilson himself said he merely intended to frighten Reffet, not actually use f ..read more