Home / Podcast / Law of Self Defense with Andrew Branca – 86

Law of Self Defense with Andrew Branca – 86

This week we talk with Andrew Branca, the author of The Law of Self Defense: The Indispensable Guide to the Armed Citizen
(that we reviewed back in episode 51). We talk about the basics of what Stand Your Ground laws ACTUALLY are, and not what the media tells us they are. We’ve also had a lot of listener questions about self defense “insurance” so I picked Andrew’s brain about that as well, and he thinks the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network has the best model for this sort of thing.

Law of Self Defense iTunes Link

Law of Self Defense Podcast Feed Address: http://lawofselfdefense.libsyn.com/rss

The News:

Michigan is changing a law to allow qualified instructors to teach minors how to shoot handguns. Currently the law states that the only person that can allow a minor to shoot a handgun is a parent or legal guardian. More on this here.

The Misguided Moms are being called out by many news outlets like The Blaze, and even more surprisingly CNN (the same place that employed Piers Morgan…) about their claim that there has been 74 school shootings since Newtown. When we look into the actual “school shootings” we find that a bunch of these happened off campus, took place after hours, were suicides, or were the result of a crime spree that took place elsewhere, and just happened to end in a shootout in a school parking lot.

Plug of the Week:

Ben plugs a recent episode the the Ben Stoeger “Practical Pistol Show” podcast where Ben Stoeger talks about what you need for dry fire. It’s just your pistol.

Tip of the Week:

When drawing your pistol while seated, make sure you don’t sweep your legs with the muzzle while drawing it. We like our femoral arteries without bullet holes in them, and you should too.

Contact Us:

About Lucas

Editor/Head Honcho at Triangle Tactical. Lucas is a life long shooter and outdoorsman, avid concealed carrier and competitive shooter, and a lover of pork fat.


  1. Hey Lucas,

    My husband and I are members of the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network. We paid for a family membership which is $175/yr. I heard about it through Cornered Cat Kathy Jackson.

    Here are the folks on the Advisory Board for this group:


    With membership, you get 8 hours of DVDs discussing self defense and use of force as well as legal considerations. Plus you get a baseball cap too! 🙂 There is also a monthly e-zine that you will be emailed discussing some of the current issues in the gun world so to speak. There are also helpful links on the website.

    We have not had a chance to watch the videos yet (shame on us) so I can’t speak to them. Members of the Advisory Board are the speakers on the videos.


  2. So there have only been 15 schools shootings since December 2012 instead of 74? Whew. Heck, one a month doesn’t sound like anything we need to be doing something about.

    Seriously, I can’t help but feel like arguing about whether a shooting at a school qualifies as a school shooting or not somehow misses the essence of the issue. And I’m pretty sure it isn’t much consolation to the parents who lost a child.

    • Bob, I absolutely agree…with the last sentence in your post.

      However, I think the essence of the issue at hand in this specific instance has to do more with manipulation and deception through misrepresentation of what are claimed to be “facts”.

  3. T. Dubbs, no one is “misrepresentation” of facts, rather this is a perfectly legitimate question of what facts are relevant. If you think that a “shooting at a school” is an entirely different thing than a “school shooting” then you can turn 74 incidents into merely 15 by defining what a “school shooting” means to you. And there are many ways to do that. There were 20 incidents that left at least one person dead, 39 that took place inside a school building, 53 that took place during school hours, etc. etc…. It all depends on what you think is relevant. And what you think is relevant is informed by what quantity of incident you are willing to accept as reasonable normal in our society.

  4. Apologies for my iPhone’s insistence on weird spelling. The point I was trying (poorly) to make is that the original 74 incidents were fully explained and the criteria for including them was up front and explicit. There was neither deception nor misrepresentation involved. The debate is over criteria. It’s OK to disagree with the criteria — I do, myself — but make the argument on that basis, not on mischaracterizing the report.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.