Posted on 12/07/2016 10:14:01 AM PST by rktman
On December 7, the New York Times made two things clear: 1. Gun controllers are losing, as exemplified by Donald Trump’s win; 2. Corporate lawyers are coming to their rescue, donating “tens of millions” of dollars worth of pro-bono work to said groups in order to help fight Trump’s pro-gun push.
Teams of corporate lawyers began working for gun controllers in a somewhat unorganized manner after the June 12 Orlando Pulse attack failed to garner any gun control traction. The teams of lawyers were not united, rather, “they worked largely on their own,” the NYT reports. Now they are unifying in hopes of halting the momentum of pro-Second Amendment advocates while simultaneously helping gun controllers secure some of their agenda.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Shakespeare was right.
Why not?
If you’re an attorney, you say some of the time you spend playing Freecell was spent “doing Pro-Bono Work to Fight Trump’s Pro-Gun Push.” It’s better than putting it down to “non-billable hours.”
I wonder how the IRS treats “pro-bono” work done by “lawyers.”
Personally, I’d think that a lawyer advocating against the protections from government for the individual citizen regarding ‘bearing arms’ as succinctly described in the 2nd Amendment should be disbarred and removed from our legal system as an officer of the court.
Agreed.
It is not “pro-gun”.
It is “pro-freedom”.
Lawyers donating millions to stop pro-gun push (real or imagined) is "pro freedom?"
??????????????
Here’s a portion of the oath given by new lawyers at a typical state swearing in.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm):
I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Michigan...”
Coincidentally, both that state and the US Constitution have a Second Amendment protecting firearm rights.
I believe he meant the pro-gun push is really pro-freedom.
IMO, these scumbag lawyers supporting actions against pro-2nd amendment are liars, then. They shouldn’t be licensed.
I thought maybe that was the case but wasn’t sure. That’s why I didn’t go ballistic and asked.
Shakespeare was right. ..........It was the first thought that came to mind as soon as I read the heading.
They have DEEP financial interests in making sure every use of deadly force results in a court date....
No, the phraseology of the article using scare tactics.
Thank you.
That is what I meant.
Understood, but their ‘interests’ don’t make them legitimate ‘officers of the court’ does it?
Please don’t go ballistic on my account.
As long as they cannot use it as a deduction, let them go right ahead and waste their time.
I was only asking. I was not pissed....I’m just old and a stupid country boy my wife tells me.
Thanks.
When I read something crazy on FR I just assume I misread it or that the poster had his heart in the right place.
Many times over the last 15 years I’d read a post on FR and the author, in his excitement, forgot the word “not” or such, and was universally harangued.
When on FR, I assume the best.
When in the larger world, I assume the worst.
Good. They just lost tens of millions in income.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.