Posted on 05/10/2019 1:52:08 PM PDT by marktwain
-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
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
That would include about two thirds of them.
And even more so, they should not be "commiting legislation" on the people or inducing the legislators to pass unconstitutional statutes as heads of satae.
I just saw this in the attitude of the Delaware Attorney General who spoke affirming greater gun control regarding bills now facing the State Senate. She is to be feared, and (to me) a candidate for replacement at the next election, if not before. Of course, she is speaking in support of these bills that the State Governor has explicitly wished to be passed, himself of a flawed mental condition, IMHO.
These are bills that will further deprive the citizenry of means to defend themselves, their homes, and their families from the gravest of insult. In this article, Dean Weingarten says it well:
"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." In direct questioning at the hearing by one of their senators, the sponsors could not justify even their submission of the bills on logical, practical grounds. Their approach to the matter was exactly that which Weingarten exposed: less guns, and "less dangerous guns and magazines," the less the perpetrators will be able to inflict harm on their victims with them. Stupid.I am blessed by the fact that the Senator of my district is a lawyer, a Director of the Delaware State Sportsmen's Association, the Delaware affiliate of the National Rifle Association, and a supporter of the Bill of Rights. He is well aware of the Constitutionality of these bills, or lack of it, and able to warn his fellow Senators.
Lawyers who have mental problems such as this should not be practicing law.
And even more so, they should not be "commiting legislation" on the people or inducing the legislators to pass unconstitutional statutes as heads of satae.
I just saw this in the attitude of the Delaware Attorney General who spoke affirming greater gun control regarding bills now facing the State Senate. She is to be feared, and (to me) a candidate for replacement at the next election, if not before. Of course, she is speaking in support of these bills that the State Governor has explicitly wished to be passed, himself of a flawed mental condition, IMHO.
These are bills that will further deprive the citizenry of means to defend themselves, their homes, and their families from the gravest of insult. In this article, Dean Weingarten says it well:
"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."In direct questioning at the hearing by one of their senators, the sponsors could not justify even their submission of the bills on logical, practical grounds. Their approach to the matter was exactly that which Weingarten exposed: less guns, and "less dangerous guns and magazines," the less the perpetrators will be able to inflict harm on their victims with them. Stupid.
I am blessed by the fact that the Senator of my district is a lawyer, a Director of the Delaware State Sportsmen's Association, the Delaware affiliate of the National Rifle Association, and a supporter of the Bill of Rights. He is well aware of the Constitutionality of these bills, or lack of it, and able to warn his fellow Senators.
Before hiring a lawyer he or she should be vetted as well or better than you would vet a surgeon.
I don’t know what possesses you to cut an article off in mid-paragraph when this is all that is left of the entire article (and the article is just a re-hash of another source). Here is the rest, starting, with what you cut off.
**********
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.
He had charts and graphs to make the correlation between guns spreading violence similar to the pump in 1854 London that spread cholera.
They all nodded knowingly and scribbled like mad on their yellow pads.
I thought at the time that here were all these "educated" people gullibly swallowing that B/S hook line and sinker. It seems like it really was effective.
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.