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 deliberately 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 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.
©2019 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
Posts
3 comments:
So an unscrupulous lawyer could make an unsubstantiated claim to the people about his client, and in the process get more work for himself. Now who would do that???
When the law became impossible for the average citizen to understand, that's when man began to serve the law instead of the law serving man.
Since most people that were required to take civics class in high school are at least 66 years of age very few in this day and age are competent to know what the law is or what the constitution actually says. Even fewer can read the constitution competently. Ending the draft was a big mistake. Pot heads raised by pot heads for three generations. We have a nation of constitutionally illiterate pukes that wont miss the constitution until it is gone. A lot of people will die to get it back. Morons pushing for an article five convention Are to ignorant to understand how terrible that would be. What kind of force is in the word suggest? States may suggest amendments, Once a convention of states starts there is no way to stop it. What a convention of states could do to our constitution is scary.
I joined a class action law suit against an insurance company. My loss was $3,500.00. the suit took tem years to settle The break down of the settlement, the attorneys got $500,000.00, my part $11.30 No more class action suits for me.
Post a Comment