Law school "pledge" seeks to undermine Second Amendment

AP Photo/Andrew Harnik

According to anti-gunners, AR-15s shouldn’t be available to all adults because the human brain doesn’t stop developing until age 25. So, in theory, even someone in medical or law school isn’t really capable of making the same rational decisions they would in a few years.

Apparently, this claim is actually true, though it’s funny how the only place gun control advocates want to apply it is in regard to the Second Amendment and in absolutely no other part of people’s lives.

In fact, if we use this belief, it makes their actions in law schools a bit sketchy.

You see, they’re trying to pressure law students into pledging not to represent the firearm industry.

According to an April 27 press release announcing the campaign, new lawyers are “often forced” by their firms to represent “irresponsible” members of the firearms industry. To combat this alleged (and allegedly problematic) state of affairs, gun control activists have begun promoting a pledge among current law students. Its operative language reads as follows:

I will not work for any firm that requires me to advocate on behalf of the gun industry or gun lobby. I will instead prioritize firms that actively fight gun violence and the industry that propagates it.

The campaign thus seeks not only to discourage soon-to-be lawyers from providing legal representation to the firearms industry and other pro-gun interests, but also actively encourages them to attack those interests—to “kneecap” and “put the squeeze on” gun manufacturers, in the words of the left-of-center American Independent. The ultimate objective is as much to make major law firms think twice about taking on pro-gun clients as it is to recruit individual signatories.

This “pledge” is the brainchild of Giffords and March For Our Lives, both of which claim to respect the Second Amendment, yet are trying to make it impossible for people to stand up for it in court.

See, by trying to influence people in law school, these groups want to make it difficult for people with issues surrounding some bit of gun control to get representation. They want to create an environment that denies the firearm industry and gun owners access to attorneys in order to challenge laws at all.

If one purports to support the Second Amendment, there has to be a point where gun control goes too far. Some point that they say, “Nope. I’m out.”

Yet these very actions threaten to undermine people’s ability to challenge that measure through the courts.

Of course, you and I know that’s likely by design. For the ringleaders of these organizations, there’s no gun control bridge too far. They’re fine with total gun bans, they just know they can’t really say that too much, even if they slip up from time to time.

Further, is this even a thing?

I can’t imagine anyone would want someone working on a major case with possible Supreme Court ramifications against their will. Especially since most of these law firms have a number of people they can draw from to handle a given case.

You’d want the attorney to at least be enough on board with the case that they’re not likely to leave out some bit of information, some scrap of evidence or discussion that could well result in tanking the case entirely.

So I find it hard to believe there are that many people “forced” to work on Second Amendment cases. Especially since they could just find another job, thus leaving the case in the lurch.

But students in law school may not realize that, and if the goal is really to hit the law firms themselves, well, you see what this really does. It’s not solving an issue, it’s pretending there is one so they can “solve” it in a way that will, in time, destroy the Second Amendment.