Gun-Phobic Lawyers are a Legal Threat to their Clients

Justice Decency Integrity Law Order Courts
Justice Decency Integrity Law Order Courts

Arizona -(Ammoland.com)- -In a recent article in The Federalist, by Rebecca Kathryn Jude and Chauncey M. DePree, Jr., Ms. Jude related an experience during a continuing education seminar for lawyers in Mississippi. The experience was illustrative of the mindset of those who are voluntarily unarmed. In this case, they also were lawyers.

First, the hypothetical situation offered by Adam Kilgore, general counsel for the Mississippi Bar.  From thefederalist.com:

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 lawyers were asked what they should do if anything. The response of several lawyers, according to Ms. Jude, was frightening. They said the appropriate thing to do was to end their association with their client, while at the same time reporting him to the police as dangerous. Lawyers are allowed to do this *IF* they believe their client is about to commit an action that would result in death or serious bodily harm.

The problem, of course, is that there was *NO* evidence the client was about to do anything illegal, or anything that could reasonably be construed as a threat to cause death or serious bodily harm. The client was merely exercising their constitutional rights.

Ms. Jude's reporting that several experienced lawyers, in Mississippi, were so “gun-phobic” (her word), they considered mere possession of permits to carry a gun to be a credible threat of illegal death or serious bodily harm.

In a previous essay, I attempted to explain how people who are deliberately unarmed view gun ownership.

Any restriction on people being armed will appear to be a positive. The fewer armed people those who are unarmed have to contend with, the better. It doesn’t matter how useless or senseless the restriction, how draconian, how expensive, how ineffective it may be. The deliberately unarmed perceive the personal costs to be zero. Fewer guns, less fear of an imbalance of power on their part.

The explanation appears to apply to the Mississippi lawyers. The mere fact their client has permits to carry a gun, no matter how legally, overrides the fact the client has never shown any propensity for illegal violence, has no criminal record, or any indication that they will engage in illegal violence.

The attorneys have such an intense aversion to gun ownership and the use of guns, that it overrides all logic, reason, professional training, and the ethical considerations of their profession.

The real-life example shown by Ms. Jude is instructive and a warning. Before you place reliance on a professional, or anyone who may be in a position to do you harm through false accusations (doctors, lawyers, significant others), it may be wise to determine if they have this mental flaw about guns.

If they are, to use Ms. Jude's word gun-phobic, stay away. They pose a serious risk to your freedom and financial well being.

Those who are gun-phobic are a small minority. They appear to be over-represented in politics, large cities, and in academia.


About Dean Weingarten:Dean Weingarten

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

  • 15 thoughts on “Gun-Phobic Lawyers are a Legal Threat to their Clients

    1. General reply to abortion,, the Bible says zero about the subject. The 10 Commandments are a capital punishment list. The correct translation is murder is forbidden. As abortion is a religion choice and our constitution grants both freedom of religion, it then grants freedom from religion. Roe vz Wade is based in the radical concept that females have rights, that generally no one owes anyone a right to save their life, and your choice of faith is yours. Not something for another to choose for you.
      As those who chose to be unarmed a number just do not understand the police have no legal obligation to save you. They owe the community.
      For the anti gun nuts, it is not going to be a civil war, its going to be a revolution. A nasty, bloody revolution. That I prefer to miss.
      Spread the words, gun control is people control, political power flows out the barrel of a gun and the Democrats want you to give them all the political power so they can do as they please.
      Ask them what will they do if you do not comply? Veterans out number both police and active duty military add the other armed citizens and what do you the unarmed or out numbered going to do?

      .

    2. Not sure what the issue is. Cops act the same way when they are called by random people. We have everything from swatting to cops pulling guns on people walking down the street simply because some unknown person said they were a threat. This is not a lawyer issue but a law enforcement issue. These lawyers picked up these ideas and actions from the police.

    3. There sure is a lot of negative discussion about lawyers. Maybe there are some that screw over clients, obama and holder come to mind. You can’t group all lawyers into one basket and come out with a reasonable conclusion. It is the same with doctors or any professional person, they have parameters they have work within and the honest ones will do just that. Yes, dishonest ones will steal, lie and cheat but the usually get caught. Just ask the creepy porn lawyer or Mr. Cohen who is cooling his heels in prison.

    4. “Lawyers ” are not any more a “group think ” than any other profession …and there are many in the profession who support the Constitution and are needed to help maintain the Rights described in it .. and to contest the others in Court when those others ignore the Constitution .

    5. When interviewing an attorney to represent you, simply say at the outset, that you have a few questions for him. Ask if he happens to have a Mother May I Card to carry a gun… if he asks why, simply tell him you would prefer to know whether there is the possibility he could defend you should an “incident” occur.
      If he turns purple, begins breathing rapidly, gets mad, screams at you to GET OUT NOW, then you thank him for his willlingness to meet with you in his free consultatioin, but you will be seeking help elsewhere.
      Then pick up your documents and calmly walk out, making sure your hip bulge is well covered…….. and yes, I HAVE attended attorney consults, and even one private consult with a judge outside the courthouse, whilst armed. THEY never knew…… they were on a “need to know’ basis, and they didn’t, so they didn’t.

    6. Your Lawyer is an enemy SPY , for the ” Admiralty Law ” court system that can ignore The Constitution at will.
      Admission to ” The BAR ” , is the leverage used to make lawyers loyal to the state first , to protect their jobs. Loyalty to clients is far second place.

      Family Guardian . org — what they dont teach in law ‘ skool ‘

    7. Lawyers, ALL lawyers, are the main reason this country is so screwed up and a threat to every honest, decent American.

    8. I think. that most the anti gunners consider anyone who owns a gun as mentaly disturbed. The first question they ask is why do you need a gun. No matter what your responce is they always go to your mental insecuritys. I find in my opinion that someone that feels they don’t require protection in today’s society is delusional thinking that they are safe or that they can depend on someone else to protect them. I just can’t wrap my mind around that thought process. Its no different to me then someone who says I worship or believe in God and I support abortion, being gay and I am a democrat. I can’t see the logic in that.

      1. Mm44mag
        Your last sentence is one I have asked for a long time and have never received a coherent reply. There is no middle ground. One either believes in God’s word, and abides
        by it, without altering it, or they don’t. We, who profess to be believers, cannot pick and choose what we believe. It’s All or nothing.
        The Bible speaks Very Clearly regarding abortion and homosexuality, etc. One cannot take God or parts of His word out of the equation and be a Christian. No one can serve 2 masters – be true to one and not the other at the same time.

    9. Lawyers, the EPA, OSHA, FBI, ATF, DOJ (i’m sure the list could go on) those that are power hungry, seek to regulate others with no regulation of themselves, has been the erosion of America that allowed it to grow during the first half of the 20th century. “Trust us. We know whats best for you.” they say.
      Ugh? …a second opinon please…?

    10. Attorneys are all representing the Vatican and the UN. Though Americans think otherwise and believe they represent their clients which is not the case. Americans still think the court is operating by the Constitution and it is not true. Americans fighting for rights of which do not exist in court. Americans will ignore this fact 100% and continue to argue over rights under a fake Constitution. It’s funny.

      https://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/two-us-constitutions

      http://www.expose1933.com/62-bundy-oregon-standoff.html

      1. I do not remember the source, but I read years ago that every time you hire an attorney you are considered a “ward-of-the-State”, meaning you have NO voice; that you are incompetent. This is why in every court case, unless you are asked to speak, your attorney does ALL the talking.
        There is also the 100 mile Constitution-Free zone, enacted through a bull passed by CONgress in the late 1960’s.
        https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone
        Then there is the excellently written and source document, “The US is still a British Colony”.
        http://www.civil-liberties.com/books/colony2.html
        The question(s) are: just what in the hell IS this country now? Who “owns” America?

    Leave a Comment 15 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *