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