Coalition to Stop Gun Violence objects to Andrew Branca speaking at Campbell U Law School (Update – UC Berkeley too)
Zimmerman case outcome and the law of self-defense are tough to handle
Andrew Branca was invited by Campbell University Law School to speak on the issue for which he is best known, The Law of Self Defense.
Here’s part of the press release announcing the visit:
Nationally renowned self-defense expert Andrew Branca will speak at Campbell Law School next Tuesday, April 8 at noon in room 105. Branca, author of “The Law of Self Defense” will speak on how self-defense has become one of the latest hot button issues in gun law politics. He will also address North Carolina’s Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws….
One of the foremost experts in the United States in self-defense law across all 50 states, Branca’s expertise has been used by the Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, NPR, and numerous other media organizations, as well as many private, state, and federal agencies. A Massachusetts-based attorney, he is an adjunct instructor of the law of self-defense at the Sig Sauer Academy in Epping, New Hampshire. He regularly lectures throughout the country on self-defense and the legal consequences thereafter.
“Mr. Branca is one of the leading experts nationally on self-defense and the Second Amendment,” said Campbell Law Associate Professor of Law Greg Wallace. “We are fortunate to have him joining us, and I have no doubt that it will be an engaging experience for all in attendance.”
One self-described “Online tech fixer for progressive causes” tweeted:
Apparently there were other objections as well, including an “email campaign” as reported on local ABC11:
A lecture at Campbell Law School caused some controversy Tuesday.
The guest speaker was an expert on guns and self-defense law, but his Twitter feed has raised some eyebrows because of comments he made about Trayvon Martin.
For his part, Andrew Branca says he is not interested in the broader issue of how race plays into the justice system. He just wants to talk about the law. Yet, it is his Twitter account that had some questioning why he was invited to Campbell….
Branca is a Massachusetts lawyer traveling the nation by motorcycle — a one-man lecture tour on guns and self-defense law.
His strong opinions have been in hot demand since Zimmerman was acquitted of murdering Martin.
“I decided what people really needed to know was the rules up front to avoid getting in trouble in the first place,” Branca said.
Branca’s appearance at Campbell Law School did not go unnoticed by his critics, who call him inflammatory and say he is viciously attacking Martin and his family.
Critics point to Branca’s Twitter feed. He once tweeted, “To handle Trayvon, a KelTec and one 9mm round would be fine.”
“Well anyone who violently attacks another person has to be prepared that person might defend themselves,” Branca said.
Another tweet read, “Only person responsible for the death of Trayvon, is Trayvon. Oh, and maybe his father.”
“Well his parents weren’t around a lot of his upbringing,” Branca said….
The Campbell law professor who invited Branca ignored the email campaign, questioning the school’s decision to have the lecture.
“Our students learn best when they’re presented with point/counterpoint on various issues. We don’t shy away from controversial speakers here at Campbell,” he said.
Controversy can be good for business, as well. Branca is booked solid with speaking engagements this month. He says he will only be home four days in April.
After the event, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence also objected to Campbell Law giving Branca a “platform” claiming he “routinely celebrates” Trayvon Martin’s killing:
That’s not true, of course. Anyone who has read Branca’s writing about the case knows that he routinely celebrates the fact that the rule of law prevailed in the case, including the law of self-defense.
CSGV has not yet responded to an email request seeking clarification of its position on whether Branca should be permitted to speak at public forums.
Update 10:45 p.m. — I’ll probably have more on this, but note that CSGV is trying to prevent Branca from speaking at UC Berkeley:
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
In the meantime, one high school student in Pittsburgh knifed 20 people.
Just noticed your avatar. Fantastic!
In all honestly, I have to admit that I stole the idea from a comment posted here in the blog during the Zimmerman trial.
Now I just can’t remember who posted the comment.
Anyway, Thank You, to whoever it was.
Cursive is RAAAAAAaaaaaasit….!!!
You’re welcome. I had that thought about Rachel many, many months after her testimony. How did she read our founding documents? (Of course, they’re available to read typeset, but…) And how does she sign her name? Oh, well – I digress.
What did Andrew do to be labeled a “stalker” by Richir (who really DOES look like “Pajama Boi”?
The gun ban crowd has decided that instead of arguing with us they will call us “stalkers.” The gun haters have realized that every time they have a protest we can show up and outnumber them. They are fighting back in two ways. First they stop advertising their events ahead of time. They aren’t going to get popular support, so this makes sense. Second they call everyone who shows up to counter protest them ” stalkers.” This is apparently because whenever you argue with a Leftist you must be in violation of some law or other.
I have met “Jerimee” and he looks just like his Pajama Boy photo. He was massively put out that NC was getting an enhanced Castle Law, especially as it included No Duty to Retreat. He believes that if you use force to defend yourself you should have to face a full blown jury trial.
When most people say “Have my day in court,” they are speaking about getting a trial so they can vindicate themselves from unjust criminal charges. Jerimee thinks that if you shoot someone you should “Get your day in court” so that you get slammed with massive legal bills. Since you aren’t going to be convicted, for him the process is the punishment.
I see. I think. A “stalker” to dickless types like this is someone who shows up to voice an opposing view in what YOU thought was a “safe environment” to bloviate.
Boy, am I a STALKER…!!! There is no safe place, bois. You WILL get Breitbarted ANYWHERE I can manage to find you.
Consider yourselves “triggered”…!!!
That’s pretty close. Shannon Watts of MAIG gave a talk at South By Southwest a couple months ago. After her talk, one of the staff of the blog The Truth About Guns asked for and received permission to have his picture taken with Watts.
When he posted the picture to his Twitter feed (and TTAG’s website) he was called “stalker” many times.
I have come to the conclusion that words don’t carry meaning to the left, they carry emotions.
I wonder about those who want people to “have their day in court” to prove their innocence. That presumption of innocence concept is incomprehensible to those who quickly render judgement with a minimum of reported facts.
I dunno. Just to be careful, I think we should boycott this Branca character. Nothing his critics say about him is true, but if it were it would be, like, really bad, so we should boycott him.
Also, is it just me or is he a little shifty-looking in his photo? I think he’s a little shifty-looking in that photo. Plus, he said something snarky on Twitter once. And his name ends in a vowel. Not sayin’, just sayin’.
We should probably preemptively boycott him based on the precautionary principle, just in case. If we can save just one sensitive soul the terrifying specter of feeling microaggressed-against, I say we go for it.
…I feel all mico-frightened by this Branca cis person…
I need a hot chocolate.
And a cookie! No deal without a cookie. ;D
Go put your ‘onesies’ PJ’s on and talk about buying health insurance, you’ll feel better.
For their carefully crafted lie-based meme was so fragile, they opposed having it cracked open like an egg hitting the sidewalk…
Out, damned spot! Out, I say!—One, two. Why, then, ’tis time to do ’t. Hell is murky!—Fie, my lord, fie! A soldier, and afeard? What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our power to account?—Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much blood in him.
The government should require electronic bracelets for smart knives. Oh, and smart forks as well. That way everyone will always use the correct fork, correctly. Sarc/off, in case it wasn’t obvious.
I can’t believe you ignore regulation of spoons. ALL silverware is dangerous. Silverware makes people obese, which is unhealthy and drives up health care costs. After all, MacGyver types could kill whole cities with just a spoon.
Stand back, I have an assault spork with a shoulder thing that goes up, and I’m prepared to use it.
Tueller Drill THAT.
So much for ensuring a zealous defense of those who stand accused…
The left has never been about defending rights, or principles. It has always been raw pursuit of power, regardless of who or what stand in their way.
That has long been the problem with the left. I communitarian would subordinate the right to be innocent until proven guilty, along with the 1st Amdt. rights of free speech, religion, etc., 2nd Amdt. right to keep and bear arms, 5th Amdt. rights to Due Process, etc. to the apparent good of the community. For them, individual rights must give way to the community good. The individualist, including many of us here, would argue just the opposite, that the community benefits when individual fundamental rights are vigorously protected.
The problem all along in the Trayvon Martin case was that the Narrative did not accord with the actual facts. And, the narrative was developed to gain and maintain the power of the reigning Black Leadership. Pesky little problems like Martin committing unprovoked aggravated assault against Zimmerman, and that Martin was rapidly moving into a life of crime and violence at the time of his death, were never allowed to diminish the accepted Narrative.
Another part of the problem, which again is part of why the Narrative was so strongly pushed, is that the one of the big reasons that Martin was rapidly moving into a life of crime and violence is that he did not grow up with his father as a major influence in his life. This is a highly embarrassing to both the progressive leadership, as well as the Black community leadership in this country, because they are largely responsible for it, thanks to subsidizing single motherhood, and thus breaking up the Black family.
Finally, this was a clash between the middle class and the underclass. This is what happens when the underclass leaves their enclaves, and instead of preying on the others living there, they prey on the middle class. More often than not, the middle class victims are left dead or injured. But, this is part of the reason that gun sales have continued to increase, and a classic example of why exclusively depending on the police can be fatal – the police were in-route as a result of Zimmerman’s call, but likely wouldn’t have been there in time to help, if he hadn’t been armed. And, back to the question of whether individual responsibility or community rights should prevail.
In a nutshell, LBJ.
These Communists never stop, do they? They just never stop. It doesn’t matter if they’re right or wrong. What matters to them is the agenda and stopping anyone who can bring it to a halt.
Like all censors they fail to fairly represent the speaker’s message. Consider for example Andrew’s Rule #1 for self-defense: “Keep out of trouble.”
Nice intro to the “news” report:
“His Twitter feed has raised eyebrows because of comments he made about murdered Florida teen Trayvon Martin.”
Nope, no bias or ignorance on display there …
I think that the humorous thing here is that those of us who followed the case closely on this blog know far, far, more of the actual facts in the Martin case, and in others, thanks to the work of Branca. And, that may be part of why the left is so incensed about him being given a chance to speak. They would rather that he shut up, and accepted their politically derived narrative. Branca listened to most, if not all, of the testimony at the Zimmerman trial, evaluated it, and posted it here. Mountains of evidence, and the case wasn’t even close. The joke at the time was that the defense had proven self-defense well beyond a reasonable doubt, even though it was the state’s burden to disprove it to that level. Almost everything at trial, including much of the prosecution’s case supported the self-defense claim (even after the judge refused to accept into evidence Martin’s social media and text messages).
One of the great things about AB’s work here is that he jumps into the facts in depth, good and bad, in these self-defense cases. Another, is that the more that you read his work, the more hesitant you become to use deadly force unless is it clearly justified for self-defense. You quickly realize that vigilante justice will likely land you in prison.
It’s a privilege to read well-researched facts and well-grounded observations from a plain-spoken expert.
First, sorrry guys for not jumping in sooner–I’m on the road, etc., etc.
Second, to Bruce, I watched every single minute of the Zimmerman trial, and much of the pre-trial hearings (every minute of those in the immediate weeks preceding the trial, not so much some of the ones months prior). Just to clarify, so there need be no question.
Further, I had (and have) the entire discovery file for the trial, which contains a GREAT deal of evidence not admitted, or not submitted for admission, in any case.
Finally, I’ve had few prouder days in my professional life than I did yesterday, discovering that I’ve been personally targeted for “shaming” by the “Committee to Stop Gun Violence.”
The only proper way to describe the feeling would require the use of sexual metaphors not appropriate for this family-friendly blog, so I’ll simply compare my joy that that I felt when I received my first rifle at 9 years of age.
I’m going to take @CSGV’s tweet, blow it up into a poster, and hang it the wall beside my shooting awards, like a trophy animal. God willing I’ll live long enough to have @MomsDemand and whatever other anti-civil rights groups do me the same courtesy.
And, of course, thanks to all of you for reading what I write (and especially for pointing our my typos)1
You can also print copies of it for target practice at the shooting range.
Andrew, being demonized by the gun grabbers and academic dwarves is a great honor that attests to the impeccable work you’ve done in the field of SD law. You know you’re speaking truth and wisdom when the leftards want to shut you up to stop the dissemination of knowledge and the exemplification of critical thinking skills to the public.
I know I speak for others when I say thank you for being here and sharing your views and vast knowledge with us. Personally, I’ve never learned as much anywhere else online as I have from you here at LI.
Stay safe out there. 🙂
Good fro Campbell Law School. North Carolina is a “shall issue” concealed carry state. Leftist Democrats (but I repeat myself) decry self-defense but they’re losing that fight here. I bought Branca’s book, and follow some of his posts here on self-defense related cases. He appears to me to always consider what the law is, and not who the defendant and alleged victims are in prosecutions. He’s a “just the facts and the law” guy.
Tell Branca to start doodling in public places and use the name Blanco from here on out.
Online stalker??? Perhaps grounds for a libel suit. Unless there is an episode I am unfamiliar with, even a newspaper couldn’t get away with this.
If indeed this is libel, stop being so nice and sue the perp into permanent poverty.
“Online stalker??? Perhaps grounds for a libel suit.”
Oh, good God, no! I WANT them to attack me. It’s pure AWESOME. I couldn’t be happier about it. truly. 🙂
Reminds of the late, great Mike Royko of the Chicago Daily News. He’d written a book on politics, and some racial group in Chicago was all upset about it. They threatened to sue him, to which he responded:
“How can I help?”
They were taken aback. No you see, we’re going to sue you. To which Royko again said,
“How can I help?”
His tormenters, silenced, listened while he explained that when you’re marketing a new book, there’s no such thing as bad publicity. If his tormenters raised enough of a ruckus he might even strike the Mother Lode — Oprah! — and thus sell a boatload of books.
His tormenters left his office. They never sued.
From your mouth to God’s ear. 🙂
Those new water-cooled BMW R1200GS Adventures don’t come cheap. 🙂
Did that happen in connection with “BOSS”?
The aristocrats and their minions, do not want the common man to be armed. They would deny them the right to self-defense.
Ironically, the aristocrats and their minions, advocate and advise that the common woman murder/abort their children.
Evolutionary fitness, baby. These cretins are deciding your future. Don’t trade it for promises of rainbows and unicorns.
The folks who want to ban Andrew Branca are neither “left” nor “liberal.” They’re just plain fools. I’m a pro-gun control liberal and he is one of my favorite legal bloggers. He knows his stuff and can clearly communicate, sans legalese, the (IMO) ambiguous and arcane laws surrounding self-defense. If you care about gun law, whether pro or con, he is a wealth of good, easily understood information. SMH at Campbell U Law School.
pro-gun control liberal
I’ve been wondering just what this means.
I’ve heard the claim before, but have never seen or heard anyone make a rational explanation of it. That doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist, but it’s certainly elusive.
To be a Marxist, or a Zionist, or a Liberal, or a Catholic, or a Feminist, or a Warmunist, etc, means that one adheres to certain assumptions about the nature of the world and society. The assumptions are just that; that are not things which can be derived logically from first principles, they cannot be observed empirically, they cannot be proven to reflect reality. In other words, they are tenets of faith.
One of the tenets of Liberalism, in its late 20th-early 21st century incarnation, is that guns = evil, and that somebody should do something about it. A modern Liberal can’t just deny this prejudice, any more than a Catholic can deny the divinity of Jesus and still claim to be a Catholic, or a Marxist can deny the central significance of the “producers of value”.
Oops, my bad, I misread this as “pro-gun liberal”. So the question answers itself. Never mind.
Thinking a bit more on this subject, I would think that an organization titled the “Coalition to Stop Gun Violence” would be happy to have Branca speak on self-defense. If they actually listened to what he says, they would understand that he preaches a very conservative use of deadly force in situations that might involve self-defense. Don’t just pull out your piece when someone disses you, and start firing away, but rather, make sure that you are reasonably threated with death or great bodily injury.
Exactly. With liberty comes responsibility. I would actually phrase it more strongly. The prerequisite for liberty is the capacity for self-moderating, responsible behavior. The problem is not guns, knives, etc. The problem is poor judgment and dissociation of risk.
Well that would take them actually being smarter than their shoe laces.
Bruce, you’re giving the members of such organizations far more credit for intelligence and critical thinking than they’re due.
Expect NOTHING from them in those areas. Their agenda is their life-giving sustenance. It blots out truth and reason like a lunar eclipse blots out the sun. The only difference is that it’s a permanent state of darkness for them, rather than momentary.
You’d think that, but their goal is not actually to stop gun violence. Their goal is to remove guns from society.
Branca does not preach their religion. Therefore, he is not an appropriate person to speak. It’s really that simple.
No sane person celebrates Zimmerman murdering Martin in self-defense. It was a tragedy of circumstances. Would any sane person celebrate Martin murdering Zimmerman? Perhaps we should ban weightlifting and martial arts, and the element of surprise.
So, how long before the myth of Martin the innocent takes hold? You have to give them credit. They withstand the pressures of reality with supernatural strength.
It wasn’t MURDER.
Thank you. Murder has a specific definition and it generally doesn’t cover killing the person who is physically attacking you.
A lot of people were, and still are, completely prepared to venerate Trayvon Martin for slaying George Zimmerman, were that the outcome, purely based on the whipped up fury. I try not to allow myself to forget about this.
Well lets be honest if it had been the other way around it wouldn’t have even made the A section of the local paper, much less the front page. Probably would have been a 10 second spot on the news and Martin would never have been caught.
What people don’t ever want to talk about is WHY that is.
Simply to avoid any impression that I might be wishy-washy on this issue:
I DO celebrate that George Zimmerman survived the lethal attack launched upon him by Trayvon Martin, and the fact that Zimmerman was compelled to kill Martin in the process takes nothing away from that celebration.
This was no “tragedy of circumstances.” This encounter was not some act of the gods, or fate. It was the result of a poor decision making by a young violent criminal who believed he could beat someone’s skull into a sidewalk without consequence. Then he heard a loud noise, and died. My sympathy for him is limited. Poor choices, poor outcomes.
In the Zimmerman case, the innocent victim survived, and the vicious attacker died. That’s a social good.
As I’ve said many times, the ONLY person responsible for the death of Trayvon Martin is Trayvon Martin. Period.
But I’m still very disturbed about this even going to trial, and especially the circumstances under which that occurred.
“murdering” is a crime.
Did GZ commit the crime of murder? No, he did not.
Let’s not offend the sensitivities of these proto-lawyers while they are still in the beta stage of their gestation. Heaven knows they will never encounter any adverse opinions during their long and fruitful years as attorneys.
Heh, heh, heh, moooo-hoooo-haaaa-haaa-haaaaaaa….
(Rubs his hands together…)
Meanwhile, there’s a memeorandum thread for a story that Brandeis University has decided not to honor a former Muslim critical of Islam and champion of rights for Muslim women with an honorary degree because students and professors decided her words may hurt the feelings of some people who hear them. You know, because stopping someone from speaking freely about her first hand experiences and observations is required when you’re as deeply committed to social justice as they are at Brandeis. Or something.
Andrew is lucky the social justice fascists at Campbell were not as effective at quelling his speech as the social justice fascists at Brandeis.
The speech intolerance sickness is spreading and multiplying.
I hope Andrew didn’t give any money in support of Prop 8. 😉
“I hope Andrew didn’t give any money in support of Prop 8. ;)”
I didn’t, but what would it matter? Who’s going to fire me? My only “bosses” are my wife, my kids, and the many thousands of people who buy my books, attend my seminars, and read my posts.
And all of THEM seem to like me just fine. 🙂 (Well, maybe not the teenagers all the time, but, hey, I’ve been there myself.)
[…] The mouth foamers over at the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence are objecting to Andrew Branca apparen…. His sin? He believes that the rule of law prevailed in the Trayvon Martin case. For a coalition of supposedly peace-loving organizations, the folks who run CSGV sure are a bunch of hate filled, narrow minded goons who try their best on a daily basis to shut down the free exchange of ideas. If gun control is such a good idea, why are they so afraid of debating the issues on their merits in an open and free manner? […]
look, we all need to be honest here.
we’ve all been enabling Mr Branca to do his dastardly deeds and his resulting stalking issues are OUR fault.
We have failed you Andrew, for that I apologize. Now stay away from my house, I see you out there in the woods…..
Good people are not celebrating martins death
by issuing a sigh of relief that good people can defend themselves and that , for a moment, the verdict didnt
capitulate to the emotions
black on white crimes hardly no mention in the msm
protected classes sends the message that whites are inferior
the left ,as we know , talks about equality ,
but as we know, is out for revenge against innocent people
ESPECIALLY WHITE PEOPLE
but all good people of all races are subjected to their wrath
The commies were smart to take over the schools first. The general populace is too stupid to comprehend simple English, let alone concepts of individual liberty and personal responsibility. “Celebrating” the death of someone? Please. If it weren’t so sad and serious, it’d be funny.
New title: “In complete ignorance of how firearms function, CSGV shoots itself in foot”