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?

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.