Law Professors Direct Law Enforcement To ABUSE Loophole For Gun Confiscation

6
912

One of the biggest problems that we have in America today is how laws on the books are twisted in how they are implemented to use them in a way that the original law was never intended. A perfect example of this is how the Biden administration has twisted existing laws about requiring firearms that are being sold to have serial numbers in an attempt to track firearms that have, historically, always been perfectly legal to own without serial numbers.

In other words, they are twisting laws to get a different result out of them.

Which, for some people, begs the question: How did leftist politicians and the bureaucrats working for them get to the point where they think that it’s okay to twist laws?

Advertisement

Fair question. In most cases, the answer comes back to the fact that most politicians were trained as lawyers, so, we should consider if law schools are training future politicians to abuse the Constitution.

Based on today’s story, unfortunately, I’d say that that answer is a resounding “Yes!”

See, some law professors have taken it upon themselves to advise law enforcement how to illegally take your firearms without any repercussions to themselves by twisting an existing policy (hat tip to here for the lead). The paper, titled Qualified Immunity as Gun Control and written by University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law professor Guha Krishnamurthi and University of Houston Law Center professor Peter Salib includes such legally questionable suggestions such as the following:

Here, we suggest an unlikely source of continuing power [to confiscate guns from people], after Bruen, for states to disarm individuals they deem dangerous: qualified immunity. Qualified immunity shields state officers from monetary liability for many constitutional violations. In short, unless a previous case “clearly established,” with high factual particularity, that the officer’s conduct was unconstitutional, the officer does not pay. Thus, a state law enforcement officer may, after Bruen, confiscate an individual’s firearm if the officer deems that person too dangerous to possess it. The officer’s justifications may conflict with the federal courts’ understanding of Bruen or the Second Amendment—perhaps flagrantly. But unless a previous, authoritative legal decision examining near-identical facts says so, the officer risks no liability. And because each individual act of disarmament will be unique, such prior decisions will be vanishingly rare. The result is a surprisingly free hand for states to determine who should and should not be armed, even in contravention of the Supreme Court’s dictates.

That’s right, law professors are telling law enforcement officers to steal your firearms because it will be difficult to punish them for it.

This is just plain evil.

And these are the people training future politicians how to take your rights.

Maybe it’s time to defund the law schools until they respect the Constitution that their jobs rely on.

Advertisement

6 COMMENTS

  1. Actually, it is a great idea to defund law schools As far back as Shakespeare’s time, lawyers were despised. I forget which play it was where someone stated “…kill all the lawyers…”, but it seems the “Law Schools” today are teaching how to circumvent the Constitution, without being obvious about it! I guess this is a natural “progression” of fifty years of progressive Liberal influence in our “Institutes of ‘Higher’ Learning”! What’s your take on it?

    • Fb – actually they are no longer concerned about “being obvious about it” – they are in fact being in your face blatant about their tactics. Like this latest about using ‘qualified immunity’ to shield them from the personal consequences of their illegal actions.

  2. They want Gun Confiscation have them start with the criminals THAT AREN’T SUPPOSE TO HAVE THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE AND ALL THE PLACES THAT HAVE STRICT GUN LAWS …

  3. High taxes on material necessities like heating oil, toilet paper and guns are highly regressive. Shows who the Progressives favor. From their point of view, restricting possession of firearms reduces the chance of on-the-job injuries to the violent felons they release from prison, the destructive rioters they support and even encourage.

  4. Where the F do these absolutely foreign non Americans come from, and how do they worm themselves into professorships?

  5. Exactly why I say the problem with America is LAWYERS! EVERY safety device in a firearm is a LAWYER DEVICE! They don’t have a clue as to how firearms work, but should some knucklehead shoot himself, orhave a negligent discharge, the first thing that happens is a lawyer gets involved, and before you know it you have the “drop” test and the associated extortion fees that are designed to keep manufacturers from selling their products in places like CA! I HATE lawyers!

Comments are closed.