Ethics or Bigotry? Lawyers Say They Would Report Clients For Legally Owned Gun

BigStock.

Imagine losing your gun rights because your attorney violated attorney-client privilege to report you to police because he/she believes that your carry license makes you “dangerous.” How would that sit with you?

Just such a scenario played out in a recent legal ethics (no, that’s not a contradiction in terms) course in Mississippi. And experienced attorneys failed miserably in handling the hypothetical scenario in an ethical manor.

Attorney Rebecca Kathryn Jude and Dr. Chauncey M. DePree, Jr. wrote about the anti-gun bigotry displayed by these juris doctors at The Federalist:

If your lawyer believes that having a firearm license defines you as dangerous, you may be at risk of losing your Second Amendment rights and even your freedom. You may not know about his belief or recognize the risk until it is too late.

I can almost hear you saying, “My attorney is my advocate. What are you talking about? That could never happen!” You are wrong.

Lawyers are required to attend continuing legal education. During a recent ethics seminar, “The ‘Perfect’ Match: Selecting Clients for Successful Representation (Ethics),” Adam Kilgore, general counsel for the Mississippi Bar, offered the following hypothetical to a group of experienced civil and criminal lawyers.

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 asked the class what actions, if any, a lawyer should take.

With zero history of violence and a concealed carry license, most dispassionate people would say that the person in question would be at a negligible risk of committing a serious crime. Yet that’s not how these experienced attorneys reacted.

While I was forming an answer, 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.

Remember, the hypothetical man had done nothing wrong in the scenario, yet many of the attorneys present would drop him as a client and contact law enforcement…simply because the upset person had permits that identified him as a good guy gun owner.  Unbelievable, right?

The Federalist piece authors agree.

I have to admit, I was flabbergasted, for several reasons. First, I live in Mississippi, which is among the reddest of the red states. Second, the attorneys—let me call them gun-phobic—were proposing to violate the attorney-client privilege, which establishes one of the most sacrosanct confidential relationships. (American Bar Association “Rule of Professional Conduct” 1.6). As with most things, there are exceptions. They generally pertain to a client who is about to commit a criminal act or engage in fraudulent behavior.

The gun-adverse lawyers who failed to successfully navigate the scenario tried to weasel out of the attorney-client privilege by claiming exigent circumstances.

The lawyers who proposed to call the police cited ABA Rule 1.6 (b)(1). It states “[a] lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary: … to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm.”

Of course, exigent circumstances must meet the reasonable person standard. In other words, “What would a reasonable and prudent person have done in the same situation knowing what the defendant knows.”

A reasonable and prudent person does not assume that just because someone is a law-abiding gun owner that they are a danger to the community. In fact, just the opposite.

But that didn’t stop these attorneys.

Gun-phobic attorneys focused on the fact the client owned a gun and had firearm permits. In their opinion, that was enough to label him as reasonably certain to cause death or serious bodily harm and report him to the police.

The author concludes with this:

The adverse consequences have just begun. After being fired by an attorney, reported to the police as likely to injure or kill, arrested and held for psychiatric evaluation, what would happen to the client’s lawsuit? He would face the almost insurmountable burden of finding a new lawyer. How many attorneys would accept a case where a client has been fired by his previous attorney and arrested based on his attorney’s opinion that he is dangerous?

Congress may pass laws to limit our ability to possess firearms. Courts may interpret existing laws to limit our ability to possess firearms. They are obvious threats. What we don’t expect is the insidious, hidden threat from an attorney who does not believe in our Second Amendment rights and who takes action on the belief that he needs to protect the public from us.

Let’s face it: finding a good attorney requires far more due diligence than looking through the Yellow Pages (as if anyone does that anymore). If you hire a lawyer without learning more about them and their attitudes toward guns, you could find yourself in a worse position than if you had never hired an attorney to begin with.

comments

  1. avatar pwrserge says:

    In a free country, any lawyer who did this would be disbarred and sued into poverty by his client.

    1. avatar War Of The Roses says:

      Gavin D’Amato: “What do you call 500 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? An excellent start.” I used to resent jokes like that. Now I see them as simple truths.

      1. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

        “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers”.

        Classic Shakespeare

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      It’s very expensive to sue an attorney… and it’s not always easy to find another that is interested in helping you.

      1. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

        Because they golf with each other. They go to the weddings, graduations of each other. Good doctors golf with (bad) doctors. I think it’s called “professional courtesy”..and I don’t mean a professional discount… ‘been happening for centuries.

      2. avatar rt66paul says:

        Get real. Lawyers are whores, they will do anything that pays.

  2. avatar Mark Davis says:

    I would first sue my lawyer for breach of contract. then I would demand that his licence be revoked!

  3. avatar Hugh Staples says:

    While I do not advocate violence, if this ever did occur and it became “open season” on Attorneys…I’d understand

  4. avatar Bloving says:

    What’s a “yellow pages”?
    🤠

    1. avatar Napresto says:

      More important: where is Ethical Manor and who is its lord?

  5. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

    so if you are an attorney and know your client is a murderer, you MUST tell the court…right?

    1. avatar Dude says:

      Only if their gun killed someone!

    2. avatar Ransom says:

      I think an attorney must divulge information to stop a future crime… but not one already committed. That’s why defense attorneys are hired in the first place.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Bingo. But if that client charged with murder tells his attorney that he is going to eliminate the witnesses against him and has the present ability to do so, then the attorney is obligated to report him and to stop representing the client. But first, the attorney must at least attempt to talk his client out of making his situation even worse than it already is. Sometimes it works, sometimes it does not.

    3. avatar Sam I Am says:

      The canon of ethics prevents attorneys from disclosing admissions of “current” crimes (as in the alleged crime for which a client engages a lawyer), but if the client informs the attorney of intent to commit a crime in the future, the lawyer must report that admission to police. The article points out that some attorneys may decide that they need to take an even earlier action to point out the likelihood that their attorney poses a future risk. Thus equating “likelihood” with admission/intent. I.E., mind-reading and pre-crime punishment.

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        The frightening thing is the justification a dedicated Leftist lawyer would use, something like “Better safe than sorry. I’d better report it”.

        That was in Mississippi, for cripe’s sake!

        1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

          Assume every lawyer you meet is a rabid leftist authoritarian. It certainly won’t always be true, but it’s the safe way to bet.

          In fact, if I don’t know anything about an issue or bill, the first thing I want to know is where the teachers’ unions and bar associations stand. If either are for it, I’m against it. It’s been 100% reliable so far (though that doesn’t remove the obligation to eventually study up for yourself).

        2. avatar GunnyGene says:

          Believe it or not, the reddest of Red States also has it’s share of hard left, anti-gun, anti freedom jackasses. I live here, and it’s a constant fight to keep them corralled.

    4. avatar Rad Man says:

      Only a jury can determine the guilt or innocence of an accused murderer. We’re all innocent until proven guilty. Some lawyers are fearful weenies. Not me, but some other lawyers.

  6. avatar Dude says:

    I got a check up at the doctors office last year. As you guys probably know, after they ask about my medical history, medication, etc., they asked if I owned firearms. I declined to answer. So, would this information become part of my medical history, and could health / life insurance companies use this to raise my rates? Or would they lower my rates since I’d be more likely to survive an attack? 😉

    Anti-firearm propaganda is being pushed from every direction now.

    1. avatar Blake G says:

      So who’s your new doctor? 😀

    2. avatar Phil Wilson says:

      The only professional who has any business asking about your firearms is a gunsmith.

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        Or an insurance underwriter, if you are insuring a fine collection…

      2. avatar G Tyler says:

        Phil, only if you have employed the gunsmith to do work on your gun and then only about the one that he is working on. Anything else that you own is none of any one’s business.

    3. avatar Rusty Chains says:

      The only correct answer is no. A refusal to answer is a yes. You don’t want any insurance company accessable database to contain that information any more than any government accessable database.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “The only correct answer is no. A refusal to answer is a yes. You don’t want any insurance company accessable database to contain that information…”

        Now, what would I, as a leftist anti-gunner legislator seek to do? Make it a crime, or civil breach, to lie to anyone who asks “the gun question”. In addition, the law would declare that if at some point you are found in possession of a gun, your insurance is immediately terminated, you may not ever again purchase insurance of any kind, and you would be fined all the chargess you filed from the inception of any and all your insurance policies/coverage. A really committed anti-gun legislature could make this happen fairly easily. Wonder why we haven’t seen it, yet?

        Oh yeah, then there is that whole put you on the “No Fly”, “No Buy” list thing.

        1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

          A doctor isn’t ostensibly a Govt agent. The minute a law is passed that involves govt consequences/sanctions, it becomes a violation of first, second and fifth amendment rights.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The minute a law is passed that involves govt consequences/sanctions, it becomes a violation of first, second and fifth amendment rights.”

          Think that one over, again. No law permits fraud. Making a false statement in order to obtain any serivce can be legally made enforceable under fraud statutes. Commiting fraud violates zero constitutional protections. In addition, a medical care fraud statement can easily be made/mandated by state or federal law, or just the demand of whomever you receive services from.

        3. avatar Rusty Chains says:

          Sam, I’m not saying you’re wrong here, I’m just postponing what I see as the inevitable. I fear that eventually the anti-gun extremests will be successful enough to push us into an actual hot civil war, rather than the current war of words.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Sam, I’m not saying you’re wrong here, I’m just postponing what I see as the inevitable. ”

          Understand that, thanks.

          People should say yes, no or nothing, as they see best. Just pointing out how “NO” is not kryptonite to anti-gun zealots, and how those zealots might proceed to punish stupid people like us, who won’t do right. The issues here are serious, and we should always look two/three “jumps” ahead, and have a plan.

    4. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

      It’s called your “permanent record”. Remember hearing about that in grade school? We thought it expired when we graduated. It doesn’t.

  7. avatar Mad says:

    This happens at the doctors office also.

  8. avatar NORDNEG says:

    This is exactly why there should be a law against attorney’s,,, too bad they are a necessary evil…,
    What the country really needs is a loser pays law,
    But of course the attorney’s & congress are against that idea,,, why ? Because most of congress are attorneys…

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      The “American Rule” is not applicable in all cases. Many contracts, for example, have attorney’s fees clauses that are “loser Pays.” IN civil rights litigation, a winning plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees (but under decisional law, a winning governmental entity generally is not.) The law that protects firearms manufacturers and licensed sellers from certain lawsuits has and attorney’s fees provision. And so forth.

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “What the country really needs is a loser pays law,…”

      Lived through that in Texas. Sounds good at first, then you begin to consider…..
      – define “loser” (not as simple as you think)
      – define “pays” (see above)
      – how will a non-corporate complaintant finace “paying” the legal expenses of a corporation who wins a case?
      – states with “loser pay” require a complaintant to post bond for the estimated amount of defendant estimated legal costs. The defendant gets to estimate the costs.
      – “loser pay” laws benefit corporations at the expense of the individual who is discouraged by cost from filing a suit in the first place.

      1. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

        In Corliss VS Allentown, and Allentown PD, in Pennsylvania, it clearly benefited the lone individual and cost the city of Allentown. To address your points’

        Define loser – Technically the case was not “won”, as in there was no ruling against Allentown. The case was settled. Pennsylvania has a loser pays provision and Allentown knew if they lost they would have to pay and knew they would lose eventually as they were clearly in violation of someone’s civil rights. So as part of the settlement they paid the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees, court costs, etc.

        Define Pays – They cut checks to all of the entities they were supposed to pay.

        How will a non-corporate complainant finance “paying” the legal expenses of a corporation who wins a case? – Make payments tot he courts who will then pass it along to the owed parties. Take out a loan, 2nd mortgage, etc. Have insurance that covers this expense. Don’t file frivolous lawsuits and make sure are able to afford it if you lose.

        States with “loser pay” require a complainant to post bond for the estimated amount of defendant estimated legal costs. The defendant gets to estimate the costs. – This is not true. Every state is different. Pennsylvania has no such provision.

        “loser pay” laws benefit corporations at the expense of the individual who is discouraged by cost from filing a suit in the first place. – This depends on the situation and the merits of the suit and who is suing and who is being sued and where the suit is being filed. Not having loser pays requires plaintiffs to have the funds to sue up front including their own lawyers fees. Corliss VS Allentown was taken on contingency because the attorney the case was solid, and Allentown would pay either through loser pays or via settlement during which they agreed to pay because of loser pays

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          As you noted, every state is different. “Loser pays” is just legislation, and can be changed at any time to require a bond in the amount of estimated legal costs for the person/entity being sued. Takeaway? Know what “loser pays” means, not what we want it to mean. Nothing more.

  9. avatar DrDKW says:

    I hope they all flunked!

    1. avatar Ardent says:

      I was waiting to see if someone brought this up. Where is the follow up? Did the school report them all to the bar for investigation? Did they not indicate the intent to massively violate a fundamental pillar of legal ethics? Are their names at least published so they can be avoided? Where there are no consequences, there are no rules.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Did they not indicate the intent to massively violate a fundamental pillar of legal ethics?”

        Depends on what “is” is.

        Laws and lawyers are all about words. If laws were written so as no one could argue an alternative meaning, we would not need lawyers. The (cough, cough, ahem) Second Amendment should be all the explanation we need in order to understand the situation posed in the article.

  10. avatar GlockMeAmadeus says:

    Anti-Bill of Rights doctors, educators, attorneys, who all belong to various anti gun unions, guilds and associations, we are in the good hands of professionals with standards!

    Fine friendly folk who really care!

    1. And this only confirms what I have been saying for years about the depraved Democrats, RINO Republicans, most members of Congress, Bolshevik legislators in Salem, Oregon, and “LBJ/KGB” style politicians and Earl Warren type judges: deceitful crooked immoral treasonous and socialist! Not only is the innocent
      American gun owning male punitively and malevolently targeted, but likewise gun owning women too. “Class warfare/people control personified!

    2. avatar frank speak... says:

      unions don’t reflect the views of all their members…and the positions they adopt are not universally accepted..

  11. avatar enuf says:

    Merely owning a gun is no more evidence of a predisposition to violence than is owning a fast car evidence of a predisposition to win a NASCAR Championship.

    It should take something real for a lawyer to do that to a client. That’s what is needed here, to teach these legal beagles the difference between real and imaginary.

    1. avatar G Tyler says:

      That is why “red flag laws” are so dangerous. Someone says that you are a danger and the police come at 5:30 in the morning and take your property now, you have to prove a negative to get your property back.

      1. avatar enuf says:

        Which is why the NRA, GOA and SAF should be promoting the Due Process legal language those laws need. Not just opposing but fighting to correct.

        And they do not need to be special laws either. There are laws on the books almost everywhere for handling someone who may be a danger to him/herself or others.

        Fix the damned laws that we have, that’s what the gun rights groups should be fighting for.

  12. avatar MyName says:

    Seemingly impossible but lawyers find a way to further tarnish the image of their profession.

    1. avatar W.O.T.R. says:

      And 500 years from now they will still be crawling around…

      …they are like cockroaches, in more ways than one.

  13. avatar barnbwt says:

    “The instructor asked the class what actions, if any, a lawyer should take.”

    To be fair, this question sounds anti-gun slanted as hell, and as a student/audience member simply trying to get through a course/seminar by tolerating what, by this point in my academic career, is simply one more case of bias and other unprofessional behavior by a professor/presenter abusing their power…I might answer similarly if that’s what I thought they wanted to hear, even if I wouldn’t do so “in the real world.” I think the ‘gotcha’ here is that the presenter was asking the biased question with the opposite motive than you’d usually expect (trying to trap students into anti-gun unethical action so as to expose them, rather than rewarding them)

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      These classes are continuing legal education classes for attorneys, not students. They are not graded on anything but attendance.

  14. avatar possum, destroyer of arachnids says:

    Law yurs gunms are gone

  15. avatar Jbw says:

    I will not tell anyone, relative, doctor, tax man, lawyer anyone what firearms I own. It is none of their business. People who go around letting everyone know that they own a firearm of any kind is a mistake and a real potential problem

    1. avatar TheMan says:

      I agree. I cringe when I see a firearm sticker on a vehicle.

      1. avatar Erik Weisz says:

        Just like any other modern-day liberal.

        1. avatar TheMan says:

          If I’m on the run and in need of a firearm, I’ll know which idiot’s house or vehicle to break into. And yes, I can just wait until you leave the house.

        2. avatar Erik Weisz says:

          Like I said, just like any modern-day liberal.

      2. avatar Spectre_USA says:

        Do you prefer to cower behind a co-exist sticker?

      3. avatar DJ says:

        Red Flag laws change everything. Do nothing to indicate you have guns. The 1st Amendment can now become your worst enemy.

    2. avatar Erik Weisz says:

      Why should I or anyone else be driven underground for exercising a natural, legal and constitutionally protected right?
      I have pro-2A stickers on my truck, and I refuse be censored or hide who I am like a little bitch. But hey, that’s just me.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “I refuse be censored or hide who I am like a little bitch…”

        Wearing a yellow star will protect you. Besides….

        Concealed means concealed.

        1. avatar Erik Weisz says:

          Nazi Germany era yellow stars are the same as NRA stickers? That really has to be the dumbest thing written on the internet today. The internet – let that sink in a moment.
          WTF does concealed have to do with anything? We are Americans, and (should be) proud of it – not 5th column commie traitors. THEY are the ones who need to stay closeted.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “That really has to be the dumbest thing written on the internet today. ”

          Wearing any identification of who you are makes you a target of the authorities. So….yes. Wearing an identification symbol makes you a target of tha anti-gun crowd (authoritarians), who are really no different from the Stasi, Cheka, NKVD.

        3. avatar Erik Weisz says:

          I don’t think you know very much about the Stasi, Ckeka, or NKVD. lrn 2 history plox

    3. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

      I remember back in the 1980’s and early 1990’s we were in the closet and hid our gun ownership. There was no internet. There was no social media. The mainstream media had us so convinced that we were a small minority that we were afraid to talk about guns around anyone unless we already knew they were pro gun. What did that get us? The Hughes Amendment, the Bush import bans, the 1994 AWB.

      Now we know how many we are. We can talk about guns openly anywhere without fear. Hell, I give out tons of PA gun law fliers at work and have not had an issue. The anti guns actions back then mostly caught us by surprise. Now we know every time a mouse farts in congress on either the federal or state level.

      We need to be open, we need to be out so that that our friends and allies are heartened encouraged and our enemies are disheartened and discouraged. We need to support each other and not let them divide us as happened in England.

      If you don’t want stickers on your home or vehicle because of what someone might do when you aren’t around, I understand. If you don’t want to give anyone an itemized list of what have I understand. But we should never be afraid to make it known that were are in general gun owners and supporters of freedom.

      1. avatar Ardent says:

        Well said and so very true!

        Opsec is one thing, hiding the very fact of being progun is absurd. If we are driven that far under ground it’s merely a matter of time before the right is lost.

        1. avatar Erik Weisz says:

          Exactly.

      2. avatar Erik Weisz says:

        I agree completely, although I would have added some sort of insult towards the fudds who feel like we should allow ourselves to feel persecuted by a bunch of pansie-assed commies. The word that comes readily to mind is “bitch”, because that’s what they are, hanging their heads in their well-deserved shame, awash in their victim-hood, hiding from delicate snowflakes as if they were jack-booted brownshirts. If their guns have served only to make them even more meek and fearful of losing their precious permission to own them, then they are but useful idiots on a flank the left has already taken. I have no more use for them, for they only serve to weaken us all with their appeasement.
        Also, did I mention they’re bitches? ‘Cuz they’re bitches.

  16. avatar Erik Weisz says:

    WTH is a “so-called enhanced carry license”? Super-extra permission? Does such a thing even exist?

      1. avatar Erik Weisz says:

        Thanks, Dan – I never heard of such before.

    1. avatar Casey says:

      You’d know if you kept up on this stuff instead of worrying about which Glock sticker looks best on your Prius.

      1. avatar Erik Weisz says:

        You’d know better than to project if you bothered to read my post – you know, the one where I said “truck”. I don’t live in Mississippi, I don’t go to or through Mississippi, so I don’t actually keep up with Mississippi concealed carry permits. But hey, you keep worrying about which stickers are on my truck.

  17. avatar RCC says:

    Bias everywhere against firearms.

    Lawyer in Australia posted article recently on local gun site where the hospital flagged him when he picked up his mother as he is well known shooter and pro gun lawyer.

  18. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    On one hand, reporting the client to the police is clearly crossing the line, ethically. But on the other hand, standing outside a business holding signs detailing your grievances with them seems like a pretty bad idea when you’re pursuing legal action against them. If I were a lawyer I probably would drop the client for undermining his own case. He just made his firing look totally reasonable by doing that.

    1. avatar Huntmaster says:

      Yes, I thought about that also. Here you are as an attorney, trying to put together a case for the guy and he starts picketing the person you’re bringing the case against. If he went ahead and didn’t consult with you about it, or if he did and didn’t take your advice, you pretty much have to conclude he’s not thinking rationally. I don’t know that I would red flag him but I would rethink representing him.

  19. avatar Tim says:

    Don’t forget that most of our politicians are members of the Bar.

  20. avatar D.B. Cooper says:

    Cohen and the Democrats killed the concept of attorney-client confidentiality, got away with it, and set the precedent for the future.

    1. avatar Erik Weisz says:

      Exactly.

  21. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    The slipperiest of Slippery Slopes! Then commun, I mean liberals will find other reasons to ignore attorney-client privilege. Remember that Soviet lawyers worked for the party, not the “client”.

  22. avatar DaveL says:

    My mind boggles that anybody with a 3rd grade education, let alone a law degree, could accept the premise that the fact a person is licensed to do ‘X’ is grounds for barring him from doing ‘X’.

  23. avatar george burns says:

    I would make this information public in any way possible, including taking a full page ad in the town or city that the attorney practiced in. As long as you are telling the truth, I doubt that any problems other than the one caused by the meathead lawyer would surface.
    Any lawyer who sells out his client deserves to be publicly shamed, and have his misdeeds brought into the open. I would also go after his Law license in a legal format as required by state law. There is no excuse to ruin another persons life on a supposition or politically motivated act, it is betrayal in the first degree.

    1. avatar ROBERT B CHARLES SR says:

      WELL SAID GEORGE

  24. avatar Paul Hurst says:

    LOL

    Then after ratting the client out and getting him arrested, they will gladly defend him on the gun charge, arguing his innocence, while racking up billable hours…..

  25. avatar GS650G says:

    And red flag laws conveniently accomplish the goal.

  26. avatar daveinwyo says:

    I still think OJ was guilty.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      you,,,and everybody else….

  27. avatar FedUp says:

    My first thought: If somebody took the extreme slanderous actions described here because I’m one of the CWP holders who are statistically 1/27th as likely as the general population to commit a violent crime, I’d go scorched earth on them and would not rest until I made it impossible for them to work as an attorney in my home state.

    My second thought: How many of the slanderous idiots were born with a vagina, and how many of them merely self-identify as twats?

    I’ve known some smart lawyers (could have been engineers or physicians if they wanted to), some not so smart lawyers, and some idiots I’d never consider hiring. Most of the full blown idiots were female.

    1. avatar Binder says:

      Dude, in order to get a license you can’t have a criminal history. Funny how much lower the crime rate is when you don’t include people who are criminals.

      1. avatar VN1983 says:

        “Dude” bit the narrative of the left is that the gun itself makes you per se more dangerous and per se in more danger (when in fact this is an inversion since if the gun is lawfully possessed, like 95% of guns, you are less of a danger and your household is safer than people who own no guns).

        What the other poster is noting is not the past crimes affecting crime rate — but FUTURE ones.

        The left has a cognitive bias against what then entire body of science and peer reviewed work in criminology shows — that 90% of homicide, shootings, and gun crime is (prior) criminal on criminal.

        In my old hometown, Baltimore, a left stronghold for decades, 93% of homicide perps and 91% of homicide victims have a criminal record, and 82% of perps and 80% of victims have either felonies or 10 or more priors.

        If doctors, lawyers or anyone else want to quantify risk of future harm. It is not gun ownership at all it is prior record.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…that 90% of homicide, shootings, and gun crime is (prior) criminal on criminal.”

          Talk about not seeing what is in front of you. How do you manage to get yourself dressed? I mean, like, wow, you know. The stats you listed prove that guns are the problem. Without guns, all those criminals would not be shooting each other. Those criminals with guns need them to feel powerful, powerful enough to take on the other guns who feel powerful. Without guns, the sense of powerfulness would go away, and people would be less determined to kill someone else.

          I bet if you could survey the people you detest, you would find that they would be happy to get rid of their guns if police would ensure other criminals don’t have guns. Countries with strict gun control do not have the same rate of gun crime that we do. Criminals do quite nicely in England, Sweden, Denmark, Lichtenstein, Monaco, etc without needing guns. And they don’t kill as many of each other as in this country.

          But what does that have to do with legal gun owners? They can set a good example of societal responsibility by giving up their guns. Criminals could look at that and decide they will have longer lives if they don’t use guns. A secondary order of effect would be that criminals, knowing they won’t face some unsuspecting dweeb with a gun, can do their business by bonking the victim on the head and stealing stuff. Adding to the reduction in deaths caused by gun violence.

          C’mon man, you know it is true: no guns, no gun crime. Please, give peace a chance.

        2. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

          Other countries face problems with knife crime and other violent crime. Things have gotten so bad in England they started registering knives. England and Australia also both have serious problems with illegal guns because, get this, criminals don’t obey the law.

          And if we can’t stop millions of tons of drugs being smuggled into and around the US what makes you think you could stop smuggling of guns too?

          What criminals need to look at to dissuade them from violent crime is their victim pointing a gun at them and/or another another criminal who already got shot by their victim.

          If you think bonking someone on the head is harmless come on over and I will do it to you.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “If you think bonking someone on the head is harmless…”

          Thinking it would be less harmful than shooting someone in the head.

          But glad you read that far into the ridicule.

  28. avatar Anymouse says:

    Yep. Many southern states have them that let you carry at churches, schools, govt. offices, bars and other “sensitive” places that are off limits to an ordinary carry holder. Seems silly to me. Either you’re competent or not, and should follow the rules, like not getting drunk while carrying.
    No idea how this affects the thought problem. Is an enhanced carrier more or less threatening after going through extra training and screening, or is this more magical thinking that someone intent on violence would obey laws regarding where they could legally possess a firearm.

    1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

      That’s the outcome of permission slips to use a constitutionally guaranteed right, degrees of rights.

  29. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “Ethics or Bigotry? Lawyers Say They Would Report Clients For Legally Owned Gun”

    Interesting, doesn’t that violate the attorney-client privilege…???

  30. avatar Punxsy Phil says:

    There isn’t a licensing agency in the country that would file on a “violation” of this type. Now, show up drunk in court and you better hope you remember how to dig ditches.

  31. avatar Hannibal says:

    This piece makes the case for finding a lawyer and asking him questions BEFORE you need one. Ideally you find a pro-2nd non-fudd lawyer. But who thinks about that when it comes to employment law? I certainly didn’t ask an attorney about his 2nd opinions when I was involved in civil suits that had nothing to do with guns.

  32. avatar Kendahl says:

    I wonder what those lawyers would do about a client who didn’t own any guns but held a black belt in a martial art or was a boxer or an MMA fighter.

    1. avatar enuf says:

      Mittens.

      Big fluffy bunny ones.

      With padlocks on ’em.

      Also, big foam clown shoes.

      Fucking kickboxers dudes!!!

  33. avatar B.D. says:

    Fucking liars… I mean lawyers…

  34. avatar Kyle says:

    nice, I’ve not got a question I can add to the list when I’m interviewing lawyers.

    If yes?….then no.

  35. avatar Ben says:

    Sounds like poorly educated lawyers, which is a sadly common thing in that state from my experience.

  36. so perhaps this is an oppertunity for the gun insurance lawyers that you would get through the USCCA or Second Chance to branch out into other things so we can make sure we always have a good lawyer who believes in our rights.

  37. avatar VN1983 says:

    These are criminal defense lawyers. Given differing demographic cohorts commit crimes at different rates, and therefore are clients of defense lawyers at different rates, if this became widespread I wonder how long it would take before the ACLU would notice it disproportionately affected minorities?

    1. avatar Ardent says:

      I love it when someone thinks something through and finds the new perspective. That’s good stuff there!

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email