Marc J. Victor of the Law Firm “Attorney For Freedom” gave a speech today at Guaranty Title Agency in Gilbert, Arizona to a group of Realtor’s on self defense and the use of deadly force.
To learn more about self defense and the use of deadly force, please watch our video on this subject:
Do you know your gun rights?
Miranda Warnings: Every U.S. jurisdiction has its own regulations regarding what, precisely, must be said to a person arrested or placed in a custodial situation. The typical warning states:
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do can and will be held against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?
I recommend that you exercise the above rights and JUST SHUT UP! This is the number one bit of advice that I or any other defense attorney will ever give you, if you ever find yourself being questioned by the police in a gun matter or any other matter.
I am the only attorney authorized to speak at the Crossroads of the West Gun Show in Phoenix Arizona. In my speech I always give my number one piece of advice if you are ever questioned by the police… “Just shut up!” as well as other important advice.
Other important topics include:
What is an assault?
What is considered defensive display of a weapon and when is it justified?
When to shoot and when not to shoot.
What happens after I shoot?
How much force am I legally able to use to defend myself?
and much more.
There are times that you may be justified to use deadly force and then there are times when you are not.
This audio was recorded at a recent gun show in Phoenix Arizona to a very large group of people. In this audio you will hear me giving my number one piece of advice several times…JUST SHUT UP!
Continue reading on Examiner.com Just Shut Up!
There is a disturbing trend developing in First Amendment jurisprudence; especially in the area of church and state separation. Notwithstanding the fact that many state sponsored or endorsed religious actions appear to clearly violate the well established parameters of the First Amendment, courts are now routinely dismissing lawsuits for lack of standing. To be clear, these dismissals do not involve a rejection of the constitutional challenge on the merits of the claim. To the contrary, they are simply evasions of the issue altogether. They are technical dismissals resulting in the untenable position that these First Amendment violations are simply unchallengeable by any person. Rather than hear these challenges on the merits and reach the inescapable conclusion that such actions are indeed unconstitutional, many courts have agreed to side step the issue by construing the doctrine of standing so such unconstitutional acts remain safe from constitutional challenge. Courts should be bold enough to hear and decide these challenges on constitutional grounds. Constitutional protections are meaningless if courts construe the law such that no person can invoke those protections.
In an effort to attempt to have these matters heard on the merits and to validate the notion that constitutional violations can be challenged, our clients have decided to appeal the district court’s dismissal of the Day of Prayer lawsuit. We expect to file an appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal very soon. Additionally, another lawsuit will be filed in the state court alleging violations of the state constitution.
This lawsuit is about the role of government. Our clients remain committed to the notion that prayer is either a private matter or one that can be openly and loudly promoted by any private individual or private company on any private property for any length of time. Any effort by government to inhibit any private person’s right to pray on any non-governmental property would be opposed by all plaintiffs to this lawsuit. However, our clients, those religious and non-religious, remain equally committed to the well established notion that government should neither promote, inhibit nor endorse any religious view. Simply put, government should stay out of religious matters altogether; our constitution forbids it and it is both consistent and indispensible to notions of a free and open society.