Gun control advocates are targeting law school students as part of their fight to dismantle the firearm industry, asking future lawyers to sign pledges vowing not to represent gun manufacturers once they become licensed attorneys.
The Giffords Law Center and March for Our Lives say law students are uniquely positioned “to fight gun violence” and offer an online pledge on Gifford’s website for students to sign.
But the activism suggests that the future lawyers are dismissing a constitutionally protected industry and potentially upending the Second Amendment right to bear arms and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, according to a firearm trade group.
“It is just another example of this woke ideology and effort by the gun control groups to engage in lawfare,” said Larry Keane, senior vice president and general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association. “It’s just a publicity stunt and a desperate try to advance their failing agenda.”
The pledge encourages students to help law firms realize that acting on behalf of the gun industry could damage future recruiting of attorneys, according to Giffords’ website.
“Firms make decisions about clients based on a number of factors, including potential consequences that could result from the firm accepting a matter,” the Giffords Law Center, led by former Rep. Gabby Giffords, website reads.
Once a student clicks on a link to the pledge, they have the opportunity to sign it online, agreeing to not represent gun companies or gun lobby groups until they take “concrete, lasting steps to prevent gun violence.”
“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 pledge reads.
Spokespeople from Giffords Law Center and March for Our Lives did not respond to requests for comment.
David Pucino, deputy chief counsel at Giffords, told progressive news site The American Independent that several major law firms have helped fight in court against gun regulations.
“There’s certainly the case that the legal system allows for and encourages for everyone to have representation, of course,” Mr. Pucino said. “But that fact doesn’t mean that anyone is entitled to your representation. And if your view is that you don’t want to support and aid and abet the gun violence epidemic, there needs to be an avenue for you to be able to express that and say that.”
If a student’s pledge were ever made public, it could damage the student’s career opportunities because some law firms may not want to hire an associate who has vowed not to represent a certain industry or clients.
“If they publicize the list of these individuals that sign this, it will be out there so I think that is probably something they should think about,” Mr. Keane said.
Steven D. Schwinn, a law professor at the University of Illinois Chicago, said he hasn’t seen this type of advocacy targeting law students.
But he said he doubts that a student who has an ethical or moral objection to abortion would work for Planned Parenthood, just as a student who opposes firearms wouldn’t want to do legal work representing a gun rights group.
“Lawyers make this kind of decision all the time. Unless you’re compelled to represent somebody, you — as a lawyer — as a general matter have the discretion to take the clients you want to take and not take those you don’t want to take,” Mr. Schwinn said.
The pledge, of course, is non-binding.
“The pledge is not really enforceable,” Mr. Schwinn added. “From what I can tell it just looks like a private pledge a law student makes and I’m not sure it would necessarily ever be revealed.”
Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law, said there’s been similar efforts by a climate group, Law Students for Climate Accountability, urging law students not to represent the fossil fuels industry.
“I can’t imagine that students who would be inclined to defend the 2nd Amendment would be deterred by such efforts. And very few big law firms actually defend gun rights. Look at Kirkland and Ellis, which fired Paul Clement and Erin Murphy after they won Bruen,” Mr. Blackman said in an email.
Mr. Blackman was referring to the Supreme Court’s 2022 pro-gun ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen that held any gun control law must be consistent with the nation’s history dating back to the founding in order to not run afoul of the Second Amendment.
Public reports last year noted the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis announced it would no longer handle Second Amendment cases, prompting Paul Clement and Erin Murphy to leave and start their own firm. The announcement came on the same day the high court handed down its ruling in Bruen.
Mr. Clement, Ms. Murphy and Kirkland & Ellis did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
• Alex Swoyer can be reached at aswoyer@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.