I had a piece published this morning in National Review, on Iowa becoming the 35th state to adopt “Stand-Your-Ground”–and the third state since the Zimmerman trial to do so, despite the enormous political weight brought to bear against the legal doctrine.
In contrast, no state has gone the other direction, from “Stand-Your-Ground” to “Duty-To-Retreat.”
Here’s a taste:
The phrase “stand your ground” entered popular parlance following the trial of George Zimmerman, who in 2013 was acquitted of murder charges after he successfully defended himself against a deadly-force attack by Trayvon Martin. Political activists whom today we would call the Black Lives Matter movement saw the Zimmerman trial as an opportunity to push their narrative of a racist and murderous white society intent on keeping down minorities generally and on killing young black men in particular.
Click here to read the whole thing.
I’ve had a post published on National Review about the recent Tulsa OK case in which a man shot and killed three armed home invaders, using his AR rifle.
Why is it so hard for reporters to understand basic legal concepts?
I’ll give the mainstream media this much: It’s absolutely consistent in its inability to understand or explain use-of-force law generally and “Stand-Your-Ground” laws in particular.
The most recent example comes out of Tulsa, Oklahoma, where this past Monday a 23-year-old staying at his father’s home encountered three armed assailants who had forcibly entered by kicking in the back door.
Click here to read the whole thing!
Also, note that we’re currently running a HUGE sale on our books and online classes.
SPRING SALE! 25% OFF BOOKS & ONLINE CLASSES!
(In addition, during this sale when you enroll in the Instructor Program
you also get access to the state-specific Online Class (normally $250) at no additional cost!
Just note your state of preference at checkout!)
JUST USE DISCOUNT CODE SPRING2017 AT CHECKOUT!
Lots of people are asking my opinion of the Federal 4th Circuit upholding of Maryland’s facially unconstitutional so-called “assault weapons” ban.
Simple truth is, Charles C.W. Cooke’s already hit it out of the park on this one. I concur with his post on the subject entirely.
Here’s a taste, but please do go read the whole thing:
In upholding Maryland’s ‘assault weapons’ ban, the court employed dubious legal reasoning to trample on American constitutional rights. Freed up by the Supreme Court’s ongoing reluctance to engage in depth with the Second Amendment, the Fourth Circuit has taken it upon itself to rewrite Heller en banc. In a 10–4 decision, issued yesterday afternoon, the court upheld Maryland’s ban on both “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines.” By so doing, it deprived the people of Maryland, the Carolinas, and the Virginias of the core protections to which the Constitution entitles them.
Click here to go to National Review and read the whole thing.
Below is embedded the entirety of the District Attorney’s 22-page report on Keith Lamont Scott shooting investigation: