While 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea is usually considered a good start, TTAG’s Armed Intelligentsia know that not all members of the bar would serve society best as boat anchors. People like Chris Dumm, Ralph and Joe Grine (not to mention Alan Gura) come immediately to mind. As such, one Florida attorney thinks it’s time for pro-gun barristers to unite . . .

Dear colleagues,

Throughout the history of this country and others, groups of lawyers have occasionally organized themselves to speak out with a unified voice against oppressive government action. Although we lawyers are (rightfully) the butt of many a joke, our voices are always taken seriously in troubling times.  With respect to the current push for new restrictions on private firearms ownership, troubling times are now.

I am aware that there are thousands, if not tens of thousands of American lawyers who are lawful gun owners and proud supporters of the Second Amendment, notwithstanding the fact our practices do not directly serve the cause. However, I am aware of no formal or informal bar association which allows us to speak out with a unified voice. That needs to immediately change, and our voices must be heard prior to a vote on whatever federal legislation Diane Feinstein proposes.

I propose:

1) the immediate drafting of a short petition or letter to be distributed or available on-line, to which lawyers who agree may affix their signature of approval. The crux of the petition/letter will be opposition to a renewed AWB, specifically addressing Feinstein’s bill once the full text of it is published.

2) in the medium and longer term, the establishment of a group or “bar” to which lawyers may contribute time, funds, or merely just encouragement..

Any other proposals are gladly welcomed.

My practice is not heavily related to firearms or firearms law, and as a solo practitioner I am perhaps not ideally suited to organize these efforts. I realize there are indeed lawyers and firms already deeply involved and committed to Second Amendment rights, and encourage them to lead these efforts. I will endeavor to do so if necessary, but would gladly share those duties with others, especially those whose practices would be synergistic with such efforts. As a starting point, I volunteer to serve as a contact point for early organization efforts, and based on the volume and nature of responses to this posting, decide a course of action from there. You can reach me at [email protected].

Finally, if I am mistaken and simply failed to notice the efforts of others already organizing lawyers for this cause, I sincerely apologize. Nonetheless, I suggest those efforts need to be more visible, now more than ever. Let us lead the way NOW!

Thank you,

Randon E. Loeb, Esq. (Florida)

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

51 COMMENTS

  3. Randon, if you’re reading the comments, you just got yourself a free website for your project. It’s all on me, pro bono. I sent you an email; we can chat about the details next week.

    • Jeremy, I am wiling to donate my time to helping build this website as well. I do not want to give my email on here but I have just emailed Mr Loeb has well. If he decides to use your services for this I have asked him to put me in touch with you.

      Edit:I have just contacted you on your website as well.

  4. Here’s a legal question: why would someone introducing or co-sponsoring legislation explicitly prohibited by The Bill of Rights not be immediately taken into custody and transported to confinement to await trial on charges of treason and violation of oath of office?

  5. I am pleased that another member of the bar
    has openly supported the 2A (and by extension
    the Bill of Rights). I may have to review my
    opinion of lawyers (or at least this lawyer).
    Mr. Loeb you are hereby exempted from all
    jokes involving leeches and/or ambulances.
    Best of luck to you.

  6. I am not an attorney I am a infantrymen in the army and believe many people forget that it was attorneys that wrote our bill of rights making them the original patriots.

    RLTW
    Ed

    • James Madison was not an attorney nor did he study law and he is responsible for most of the Bill of Rights and fought for it. Today we would say he studied liberal arts. He served as a politician much of his adult life. However, 35 members of the constitutional congress where trained in law although few of them actually practiced it.

      Lawyers are part of the system but not the whole system.

  8. That is a capital idea. As a member of the Missouri Bar consider me among those who would gladly contribute time, funds, and encouragement.

  9. To those attorneys responding in these comments, please forward me your email addresses so I can start to get us organized. I will respond to you and those who already contacted me (wow that was fast!) over the weekend so we can get the ball rolling. For now please spread the word. Please emphasize that a practice focused on 2A rights is not a prerequisite, any pro 2A lawyer or judge is welcome.

  10. That sounds like one under the bow of that big ugly “barge”. If anyone is going to save the day, it will probably be attorneys, Randy

  11. As an aside, I’d like to see a 1 million AR march through Chicago, yes I’m dreaming, it would sure make my day though, Randy

    • I would join in on that. With enough people (at least a couple thousand) the state would be hard pressed to take action. As long as we keep a peacefull demeanor any forcefull action on the states part might just pi&& enough people off and swing them our way. The message would only work (in my opinion) if we were all open carrying regardless of legalities.

  12. Thank you Mr. Loeb. time to troll for attorneys at other gun sites……let’s see if we can grow your group of helpers……………

  14. Great comments here. I cannot offer anything in terms of legal advice, but this is just the kind of thing I would donate my money to support.

    I fear the legislative fight for many of us is already lost. For those of us in the Northeast, CT and NY are already proposing draconian gun laws including the publishing of pistol permit holders name and addresses, a ban on internet ammunition sales, ban on JHP ammo, 50% tax on whatever ammo we can find in stores, 1 feature “assault weapons” test with no grandfathering, standard capacity magazines outlawed with no grandfathering, all things well documented on this site.

    I could very well be wrong, but I feel that our best chance is being ready to file legal challenges to these laws once they are passed or to have savvy lawyers make it clear that these laws won’t stand if passed. The CT constitution couldn’t be more clear “Sec. 17. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the state.” So no, I don’t need a “30 bullet clip” as these imbeciles like to call it to go hunting, but rather to exercise rights guaranteed by state and federal constitutions.

    There may also be a civil rights angle here for gun owners in the Northeast as many of these proposed laws are clearly discriminatory and punitive against the minority of people here who choose to exercise their rights.

    So in short, where do I send the checks?

  16. I am not a lawyer but I will help you contact all the lawyers I can in Arkansas!!!
    God Bless You and Thank You!!!!

  18. Trying to get a bunch of lawyers to cooperate with each other is like hearding cats. Everyone wants to lead, no one wants to follow, and no one can agree on the direction to take. Take a look at Congress–a bunch of those guys are lawyers–and you will see what I mean. From what I hear, there was quite a dustup between the CalGuns folks and the NRA folks after oral arguments before the Ninth Circuit last month in the Perruta/ Richards cases, the details of which I have never learned, but included a stream of profanity by one attorney directed at another. The was an extended snarkfest on CalGuns afterwards. Seems that there are philosophical and strategic differences of opinon between the SAF/CalGuns (i.e. the Gura group) and anyone who does not follow their lead. (No, Gene, this is not an invitation to chime in with a defense of your folks. We’ll leave that snark over at your web site.)

    Anyway, SAF and CalGuns and several other groups have formed the Firearms Policy Coalition, and if there is a place for a League of Special “Gentlemen”, that might be the place to organize it.

    • Mark-

      I agree. I have no intention of fracturing scarce resources or duplicating efforts. SAF, NRA-ILA and others are doing a great job in the trenches.

      Most recently, in Egypt, when this new Pharaoh Morsi gave himself dictator’s powers a few weeks ago, the Egyptian lawyers took to the streets in protest. Closer to home, doctors organized themselves at the grass roots level to voice opposition to (or support for) Obamacare. What I propose is similar, and nothing more. That is the only vacuum I want to see filled, i.e. a VISIBLE “grass roots” voice for lawyers who support 2A, even if they are a personal injury attorney, divorce attorney, etc. and do not litigate 2A cases.

      Btw. the published ABA “gun control” policy positions are, in my opinion, horrible:
      http://www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/gun_violence/policy/related_aba_policy.html
      Lawyers who support 2A rights do not have a visible voice for themselves, as far as I can tell.

  21. I am litigating a Second Amendment case that just got heard by the Ninth called Baker v. Kealoha. I am involved in two other Second Amendment cases right now. I’d be interested in this project. I’ll shoot you an email.

  22. Hello Randon,

    We will have to get in touch. I have not worked on any gun cases in my law practice, but I have been in on the grassroots lobbying efforts from time to time. Way back when I first graduated from law school, I addressed the Virginia state Senate, along with their Police and Militia Subcommittee on RKBA-related issues.

    Although I would not, in retrospect, call it a fine piece of legal drafting, the Virginia Citizens’ Defense League has seen fit to retain my address to the legislature online:
    http://www.vcdl.org/new/vaughan.htm

    And I see the Leftist hypocrisy has not changed, Dick Gregory, Barack Obama and VP Biden all sending their children to Sidwell Friends, a tony private school with at least 11 armed guards. Back when this was written, Columbine had just happened, Rosie O’Donnell had ambushed Tom Selleck on her show, blaming him and the NRA for the carnage. Shortly thereafter, she was caught trying to obtain an armed escort for her child.

    Dear Rosie: Live by our gun laws http://www.wnd.com/1999/06/2286/
    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/1999/06/2286/#r5mGIKuoS0cc2Hkm.99

    Here’s a few talking points I would leave with the Readership:

    1) Look at the work done by Professors Lott and Landes on Mass Public Shootings and their direct correlation to Gun Free Zones (an artificial creation of the Safe Schools Act).

    Gun Expert Lott: Let Teachers Carry Arms, Ban Gun-Free Zones to Halt Mass Shootings

    Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Lott-guns-Connecticut-shooting/2012/12/15/id/467903#ixzz2HPOvLvjp
    Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

    2) Don’t let the Anti Self Defense crowd preach to you about Europe. Europe’s violent crime rate has skyrocketed over the past thirty years, while ours has steadily declined.

    “Crime in Europe and in the US: Dissecting the ‘Reversal of Misfortunes’ ”
    by Paolo Buonnano, et al
    http://www.cepr.org/meets/wkcn/9/979/papers/Buonnano_etal.pdf

    3) An excellent post on YOU TUBE
    Choose Your Own Crime Stats posted by Amidstthenoise
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0&feature=player_embedded#!

    4) But beware of Leftists trotting out the BS of Mr. Richard Florida is Co-Founder and Editor at Large at The Atlantic Cities, who cherry-picks data and alleges, in effect, that lower crime was associated with gun control (Detroit, DC, LA, NYC and all the mass public shooting Gun Free Zones notwithstanding, evidently). He does, have some interesting charts and made this grudging admission:

    “Race, unfortunately and tragically, factors into gun death at the metro level. The share of the population that is black is positively related to both the overall rate of gun death (.56) and even more so with gun-related homicides (.72). The pattern is similar for the share of the population that is comprised of young black males which is also positively related to the overall rate of gun death (.55) and murder by gun (.70).”
    http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/12/geography-gun-violence-cities-versus-metros/4044/

    In comparing the stated outcomes of #3 AmidsttheNoise and #4 Richard Florida, you can see that #3 was using more up to date FBI statistical Offender / Victim statistics, while Florida trotted out CDC data from 2008.

    5) Lastly, since it is the Constitution we are expounding, we need to look at the original intent and meaning behind the Second Amendment. Virginia Attorney Stephen Halbrook has done an excellent job researching the legal foundations of the Second Amendment in his work THAT EVERY MAN BE ARMED, as has Joyce Lee Malcolm in her work on the legal history of the militia. But to cut to the chase, there are the Founders themselves, specifically, Alexander Hamilton, who wrote in Federalist #29, “Concerning the Militia:”

    “The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”

    In simple terms, the Founders greatly distrusted a standing, federal army, but wanted mostly the individual citizens to have guns, and if there were to be a standing federal army, the citizens’ weapons, would of necessity be of the type to best them in combat.

Comments are closed.