NH's DCYF actually DID do this to me: Lawyers Say They Would Report Clients For Legally Owned Gun - Granite Grok

NH’s DCYF actually DID do this to me: Lawyers Say They Would Report Clients For Legally Owned Gun

The actual title is “Ethics or Bigotry? Lawyers Say They Would Report Clients For Legally Owned Gun”. And yes, I got reported.  From the post (reformatted, emphasis mine):

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.

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?

<snip>

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.

That reminded me of my experience in Family Court as The Grandson’s case was just starting out.  It was at either the second or third court hearing, near the end of it after much of the hearing had been about my Youngest and his former girlfriend (The Grandson’s mother).  The question was “now what to do about placement of <The Grandson> and having been through the background check, that the judge knew about me, the CASA guardian ad litum had been appointed, and that DCYF had already asked TMEW and I to be “family caregivers”, I thought this was going to be a slamdunk answer and that we’d go home with The Grandson (still a very tiny, tiny baby at around 4lbs at the time) just as we had arrived with him.

Wrong.  Why?

The “reporting” DCYF worker stood up and announced “But he has guns at home!”  and stopped right there as if that fact immediately made me a crazed maniac that was just moments away from going postal. The intimation was that instead of rescuing a little baby, I was a stone cold killer that couldn’t be trusted.  I was suspect simply because I exercised my Second Amendment rights but in the eyes of this feminist SJW (I do know her name but I’m not sure that I can use it so I won’t because FAMILY COURT), I was already guilty (and I’m pretty sure from where it came as well – an act of petty retribution rather than looking out for the Grandson’s best interest and future).  The nuance of that short sentence, of course, was that The Grandson should be immediately remanded back over to DCYF who would then place him into foster care simply because GUNS! And given that we technically had no grandparents rights at the time, we’d never see him again because of some hoplophobic SJW in DCYF clothing.

I immediately stood up, was recognized by the Judge, and wondered why I was about to be penalized by the Government simply because of that exercise of my Constitutional Rights – I used to do a lot of target shooting before The Grandson came along (at least once a week and sometimes more) and was just starting to get into Steel (plate) Challenges matches.

I stood there trying to understand what kind of bizarro world I had just been shoved into.  In a time where DCYF had turnover rates similar to the local fast food joint, where they were always lamenting that they couldn’t find enough foster homes and that folks didn’t want to work with DCYF, why was I, a law abiding citizen and an elected official in town with no criminal record other then two “crossed the double yellow line” twice in 35 years (one of which was just to snag a parking spot on the other side of the road), almost to the point of never seeing our Grandson again????

Such is the nature of DCYF and such is the nature of the feminists that inhabit it (ALL of the DCYF staffers I interacted with, with the exception of the DCYF lawyer, were female.  Each and Everyone of them, including the two gun toting, tactical assault vest wearing DCYF investigative officers who came out for a “home” visit and to verify that my firearms were locked up and that TMEW had that key and that I had the only key to where the ammo is stored.

The judge, thankfully, listened to me quietly – and then unloaded on the DCYF staffer.  Bigley.  Talk about somebody shriveling in front of one’s eyes.  And she deserved it; her “motion” (sloppily said) was denied forthwith with the only caveat that I continue with the storage protocol I had already been following – and was told to have a great time shooting.

The Grandson came home with us and never left us, ever.

But that day, in that hearing, that a government entity was biased against me.  Given what I’ve done here at GraniteGrok, I knew what I should say right then and there.  Sure, unsure what the impact would have been, but I had no problem in standing up for both our (and I do mean ALL of us) Constitutional Right in this matter and MY Right to not be penalized for it.  I know that I can say that if only TMEW had had to stand up and speak, she wouldn’t have and wouldn’t have been able to articulate what was needed.  No, not a slam against her but I live and breath this stuff – how many outside the Second Amendment / political sphere could?  Not many, I think, and perhaps not many inside, either. Most people do not like public speaking in a stressful environment – that’s just the numbers, folks.  Nothing special about me – I’ve said for years that I’m just an ordinary schlub from Central New Hampsha.

But it was a special nexus point in our lives and in the future life of The Grandson that I did what I had to given that I was FORCED to by an uncaring and unconstitutional, unelected, and unaccountable mere bureaucrat that had control of lives in her hand.

I never thought I would have had to do so – and to be frank, didn’t know if I was going to succeed.  All I know is what Yoda said “Try not. Do, or do not. There is no try“.  So, I “do’ed” and did enough.

There will be a time in everyone’s life in which something similar will happen.  Mine had to do with Guns, Second Amendment, and fighting for my Grandson.  Your’s may be far different circumstances with far different issues but it will be one of those points in time that rise up and either you Do or Not Do.

Do. Remember, those opposing you, even if you believe they have far more power than you, are still like you.  Make the case for you or your family.  It is who we should be.

After all, there was no one in that courtroom that otherwise would have stood up for me. Stand up for yourself with the cloak of Self-Responsibility.

Then, more importantly, be willing to stand up for those that can’t stand up for themselves.

Like my Grandson.