Welcome back, brothers and sisters. I am Braden. This is Langley Outdoors Academy. The place where we not only talk about what's going on in the gun world, but also how we're going to fix it together. And the content that I'm going to show you right now is an extremism and outcome of the far left gun control. No ability to defend yourself anywhere. Idea. I'm about to show you how a state Supreme Court just decided and made an official announcement that says, in this state, you are not allowed to defend yourself. You are not allowed to brandish a weapon to defend yourself even if you're under threat of bodily harm because your first duty is to run away. And if you do, you are going to be put in jail. We got a lot to talk about. Everything will be linked into the description box below.
I can't wait to hear what you guys think. And of course, make sure you hit that like button. Subscribe the channel, turn the notification bell on, and make sure they don't abscond away with your freedom quest. And thank you for that consideration and the content would not be made possible today without my sponsored tac pack. Tac Pack is a subscription service that is based and aimed at directly the AR aficionado out there. It has the highest gear. Possible packages come from 60 bucks to 140 bucks. It's easy to cancel and it's the highest gear possible. For example, this is what came in my first tact pack, so it's not stuff that's just kind of off the shelf, that's run of the mill. This is some high quality stuff. You get a $65 EDC if you use the code Langley, which is in the description box below, and thank you to them for making this content possible.
Alright, people, we got to talk about some stuff. Oh yeah, YouTube monster. Don't let him eat your subscription. Seriously. He'll eat it. You won't even know you'll be sleeping unawares. Think your subscription's safe. He's snuck in sniffing glue and eating it. Anyway, let's get him out of here. I don't want to talk about him right now. I want to talk about this little gym right here, Minnesota Supreme Court and self-defense ruling retreat before brandishing a weapon. This is from August 1st. Now I'm going to walk you through a few ideas here and obviously what their decision implies, but I want to go to the broad understanding and the broad base of what the left the gun controllers are putting as a standard in a norm for people. Underneath the blue curtain, there's a theory called Castle Doctrine. Basically it's in free states where if someone invades your house and they attempt to do harm to you, you're good.
In blue states, you have something called Duty to retreat. In a nutshell, duty to retreat implies and states that you have to run away before anything else happens. If you are in your house and someone invades your house and there's a window behind you, you have to go out that window before you defend yourself. That's just one example, but that's the idea. You have to run away or you're in trouble. Red states bring it on, baby. That's the whole idea. But anyway, let's dive into Minnesota. This is a Supreme Court ruling in Minnesota, so this is the highest court in the state. Check this out again, this speaks to what they want to do
Speaker 2:
Nationwide. The Minnesota Supreme Court on Wednesday affirmed a decision that one does not have the right to use deadly force in a situation where they feel threatened if they have the opportunity to escape again, duty to retreat. Wait until I show you some of the details of this case. The court decided the principle also applies to people who merely use the threat of force, meaning one cannot pull a weapon in self-defense if there are other means to escape even if the person is threatening them with death or bodily harm. So we are now going down a road where you can no longer defend yourself if you can retreat. That's been pretty standard with duty to retreat laws in blue curtain states. But now the state Supreme Court in Minnesota has now said, you can't even brandish a weapon to defend yourself. You can't even have the threat of defending yourself.
Speaker 2:
So it's no longer a, you can't defend yourself now. You can't even flex at somebody. Somebody pulls a knife on you. You can't pull a knife back out because you have a duty to retreat. It's a law that is completely benefiting the aggressor, the criminal, the person who would defend themselves can't even show a pistol, can't show a knife, can't brandish anything in defense. Equal fight. Can't do it. You're in the wrong people. Aggressing you perfectly fine. This is the envisionment of what they want. But let's continue because you have to understand, spread this out because this is the worldview that they want everywhere. In June, 2021, Blevins, this is the person who is the point of this case. Listen to this. Started arguing with a woman at the light rail train platform when another man threatened him with a knife. That's when Blevins took out his machete and the man and women backed away. He continued to yell and swing the machete at them for a minute. Court documents say the court ruled Blevins had a reasonable opportunity to retreat and failed to do so. Someone walks up and pulls a knife on him. He pulls out a bigger knife like say a Crocodile Dundee style and says, come at me bro. They back away. No violence was actually enacted. The situation was resolved and he's in trouble because he pulled a knife to defend himself.
Speaker 2:
Okie dokie, let's continue. And if you live in a red state or a purple state, this is what they want. This is established norms in blue states. Justice Margaret, let's go with chu. Wrote in the fortitude majority opinion that we hold that a person claiming self-defense has a duty to retreat when reasonably possible before using a deadly weapon. Again, did not whack anybody, pulled it out. That's now
Speaker 3:
Qualifying as threatening and not retreating. So effectively, standing your ground is now not retreating. Requiring reasonable retreat will still permit people to reasonably defend themselves, but will also serve to end altercations and prevent escalation to the point that someone actually uses physical force and causes bodily harm or death. So do you understand what their main point here is? Someone walks up to you, to your family, to your children, they pull a knife on you. You are expected to gather all of your family members, all of your children, your dog, your cat, whatever you have with you. You're supposed to run across the train platform. You're supposed to run down the stairs, you're supposed to run as far as possible. If they still pursue you, then you may be allowed to brandish either weapon, firearm, knife, whatever. But even then, if you still have more of a duty to retreat, you're also required to do that or you are going to be penalized.
Speaker 3:
You can't even stand your ground anymore. And leftist states now it's gone from duty to retreat when you actually defended yourself to duty, to retreat to brandishing something. Guys, I'm trying to drive this point home. This is clear and unequivocal insanity. But anyway, I think that's all I had for you. Yeah, so there's dissenting opinions and basically they were throwing some other examples out like if a woman has keys or if she's defending herself, she can't hold 'em an aggressive defensive posture. That's literally what we're talking about here. These people are so against self-defense of any kind, whether it's been a firearm or a knife, they are actually penalizing people for brandishing a knife to back off an aggressor. Guys, this is what we're facing. It's not just guns, it's across the board and that's why we fight so hard. Let me know what you guys think in the comments of below and I'll see you on the next one. I'm Braden, see you later.
YouTube Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwhsyvoRC_k&list=WL&index=3&t=50s
Credit: Braden, Langley Outdoors Academy