Connect with us

News

At Seminar, Lawyers Agree to Snitch on Clients Who Have Guns

Published

on

Gun owners could be at risk of losing their Second Amendment rights and other freedoms if their lawyers believe that possessing firearm defines them as dangerous.

At The Federalist, Rebecca Kathryn Jude highlighted a troubling scenario at an ethics seminar, “The ‘Perfect’ Match: Selecting Clients for Successful Representation (Ethics),” that she was attending.

Adam Kilgore, general counsel for the Mississippi Bar, put forward a hypothetical scenario the group of civil and criminal lawyers in attendance:

Trending: More Americans Now Identify as Republicans Than They Do As Democrats

A man has been fired from his job. He is upset. He hires you as his attorney. You are of the opinion he has an excellent case and file a complaint on his behalf. You later discover he possesses a permit to carry a firearm. He also has a so-called enhanced carry license. While his case is wending through the courts, your client goes to a public area outside his former workplace. He displays signs that say he has been wrongfully fired. The man has no history of criminal activity, violence, or threatening anyone.

take our poll - story continues below

Should Mitt Romney be EXPELLED from the U.S. Senate by the GOP for his vote to convict President Trump?

  • Should Mitt Romney be EXPELLED from the U.S. Senate by the GOP for his vote to convict President Trump?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

The instructor then asked the class what action they would  pursue in this situation. In Jude’s view, “there was no reason to do anything except proceed with the client’s case.”

She then added that she “would also advise my client to avoid confrontations with anyone who worked for his former employer and what he might consider saying if approached by the media.”

Much to her surprise, however, was her peers’ response.

According to Jude, “many lawyers immediately said they would terminate the attorney-client relationship and contact law enforcement to report their client was potentially dangerous. The only reason offered was his firearm permits.”

Jude was “flabbergasted” and for good reason.

Mississippi is one of the most pro-gun states in the country, ranked in 16th place according to the Guns & Ammo magazine.

It is also one of the 16 states in the country with Constitutional Carry.

Jude was appalled that her colleagues “were proposing to violate the attorney-client privilege, which establishes one of the most sacrosanct confidential relationships” in this hypothetical scenario put forward.

She noted that the attorneys “focused on the fact the client owned a gun and had firearm permits” and that this “was enough to label him as reasonably certain to cause death or serious bodily harm and report him to the police.”

This case highlighted by Jude shows the kinds of different tactics anti-gun proponents are using these days to subvert gun rights.

BLP has reported on numerous occasions how certain corporate interests like Dick’s Sporting Goods and CEOs have pitched in to undermine gun rights.

Gun controllers recognize that they don’t have full legislative control, so they’ll find other means to subvert gun rights.

Bypass Tech Censorship!

Facebook, Twitter and Google are actively restricting conservative content through biased algorithms. Silicon Valley doesn't want you to read our articles. Bypass the censorship, sign up for our newsletter now!

Bypass Tech Censorship!

Facebook, Twitter and Google are actively restricting conservative content through biased algorithms. Silicon Valley doesn't want you to read our articles. Bypass the censorship, sign up for our newsletter now!

Have a hot tip for Big League Politics?

Got a hot news tip for us? Photos or video of a breaking story? Send your tips, photos and videos to tips@bigleaguepolitics.com. All hot tips are immediately forwarded to BLP Staff.

Have something to say? Send your own guest column or original reporting to submissions@bigleaguepolitics.com.

You Might Like

News

Did Bernie Sanders Just Endorse a Neocon Regime Change Foreign Policy?

Published

on

Is Bernie Sanders the anti-war candidate that many non-interventionists are making him out to be?

Journalists Jacob Crosse and Barry Grey presented some interesting observations about Sanders’ foreign policy views.

Sanders criticized the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Suleimani in January and also stressed his opposition to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

During the Iowa presidential debate, Sanders loudly boasted, “I not only voted against that war, I helped lead the effort against that war.”

take our poll - story continues below

Should Mitt Romney be EXPELLED from the U.S. Senate by the GOP for his vote to convict President Trump?

  • Should Mitt Romney be EXPELLED from the U.S. Senate by the GOP for his vote to convict President Trump?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

However, Sanders changed his tune when chatting with the New York Times.

The answers the Sanders campaign gave the Times showed its flexibility when it comes to foreign policy.

In other words, the Sanders campaign signaled to the military and intelligence apparatus that Sanders won’t present a threat to their interests and may actually carry out their interventionist agenda.

One question in the survey that the Times sent the Sanders campaign stuck out above the rest.

The third survey question asked, “Would you consider military force to pre-empt an Iranian or North Korean nuclear or missile test?”

The Sanders campaign responded, “Yes.”

Based on this response, Sanders’ is signaling that he’s willing to continue Bush-era policies of “preemptive war.”

Like Obama, Sanders’ opposition to the Iraq War was a matter of politics rather than a principled opposition to regime change wars.

His campaign was also asked, “Would you consider military force for a humanitarian intervention?”

Sanders responded, “Yes.”

Some of the wars that the U.S. carried out in the name of “human rights” have been the Bosnian war and the bombing of Serbia in the 1990s along with the aerial campaign against Libya in 2011 and the Civil War launched in Syria.

All in all, Sanders’ pro-peace/non-interventionist image is at best window dressing.

Under a Sanders presidency, the interventionist status quo will likely stay in place.

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


You Might Like

Trending