In a developing legal and political clash, several major gun control organizations, including Brady and GIFFORDS Law Center, have filed amicus briefs in protest against new Trump administration policies that limit access to classified information for certain law firms. As explained by constitutional attorney Mark W. Smith, host of The Four Boxes Diner, the move by President Trump has triggered backlash not only from legal professionals but from powerful anti-gun advocacy groups that depend on these firms for legal support.
Big Law Firms Targeted for Ties to Activism
At the heart of the controversy are three powerhouse law firms – Perkins Coie LLP, Jenner & Block LLP, and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP – which, according to Smith, are deeply embedded in supporting gun control causes. These firms have historically provided pro bono legal services for groups pushing for stricter gun laws. President Trump’s orders reportedly place these firms under scrutiny, limiting their ability to access national security clearances due to perceived political activism or concerns about trustworthiness.
Brady and GIFFORDS Respond Forcefully
In an official press release dated April 14, 2025, Brady President Kris Brown accused the Trump administration of launching an “attack on access to counsel” by singling out firms based on their clients. Brown warned this could disrupt the ability of nonprofits like Brady to “defend life-saving gun laws” and to hold what she called “negligent gun industry actors accountable.” She added that this “affront to our First Amendment rights” reflects the administration’s growing “autocratic tendencies.”
The Legal Argument: First Amendment at Stake
Both Brady and GIFFORDS argue that targeting law firms based on who they represent undermines the First Amendment and threatens the very rule of law. As GIFFORDS Law Center Executive Director Emma Brown said in the same press release, the administration’s actions are “unconstitutional and anti-democratic.” This forms the crux of the gun control groups’ amicus briefs – asserting that penalizing law firms for ideological associations breaches free speech protections and sets a dangerous precedent.
Mark Smith: Trump’s Move Helps the Second Amendment – Indirectly
While Trump’s actions are not directly tied to firearm policy, Mark W. Smith believes they could have a beneficial ripple effect on the Second Amendment. As he explained in his Four Boxes Diner video, reducing the legal firepower behind anti-gun lawsuits may ease the pressure on gun owners and gun rights advocates. “This is an example of how a Trump policy, that doesn’t appear to touch the Second Amendment, actually supports it in the long run,” Smith said.
Why These Law Firms Matter to Gun Control
Smith points out that major law firms like Paul Weiss and the others named in the briefs often provide substantial pro bono legal help to anti-gun groups. These firms have submitted amicus briefs in high-profile cases such as Bruen, Sandy Hook, and others supporting gun restrictions. Smith questions why such large, well-funded firms offer free legal help to support laws that empower governments – especially when those governments have vast taxpayer-funded legal departments of their own.
Access to Counsel or Political Advantage?
The debate hinges on whether these legal restrictions amount to unconstitutional retaliation or simply an exercise of executive discretion. Smith argues that the President, as Commander-in-Chief, has the constitutional authority to determine who can access classified material. He stresses that denying security clearances does not block law firms from practicing law or representing clients, but rather limits their access to sensitive federal intelligence – a separate issue.
A Lopsided Legal Landscape
One of the more eye-opening points Smith makes is about the imbalance in legal resources between gun control groups and Second Amendment advocates. “You’ve got small gun shops or grassroots groups going up against entire state governments,” Smith says, “and these massive law firms are piling on, providing pro bono support to the side that already has all the power.” He notes that rarely, if ever, do these firms offer the same kind of help to gun rights organizations.
Brady’s Emotional Appeal
Brady’s press release paints a stark picture of what they believe is at stake. “Everyday Americans,” Kris Brown says, “will suffer the consequences” if firms like Perkins Coie can’t continue their support. She argues that the administration is not just attacking counsel but actively erasing data and research related to gun violence. Brady’s claim is that this is part of a larger, coordinated effort to “rescind life-saving prevention policies” and silence opposing viewpoints.
The Bigger Picture: Cultural and Legal Shifts
This battle isn’t just about guns or legal procedure – it’s about who controls the narrative and who gets to participate in that fight. With gun control groups claiming constitutional injury and gun rights advocates seeing a strategic victory, the situation reflects the larger polarization in American law and politics. As Smith suggests, “These cultural battles are now fought through the courts as much as the ballot box.”
An Uncomfortable But Revealing Clash
There’s something both revealing and unsettling about this moment. On one hand, legal representation shouldn’t be punished just because of a firm’s ideology. But on the other, it’s hard to ignore the hypocrisy when powerful nonprofits claim to be underdogs while having access to elite law firms with multi-million-dollar budgets. The question remains: who is really the David here – and who is the Goliath? In the end, this isn’t just a legal fight – it’s about influence, access, and the quiet war over who gets to shape America’s future.
What Happens Next Matters
The outcome of this conflict could influence not just Second Amendment litigation, but how legal representation is handled across politically charged cases. If the court sides with the gun control groups, it could limit executive authority and affirm broader First Amendment protections. If it sides with the administration, it may quietly empower future presidents to push back against politicized legal activism – intentionally or not. As Mark W. Smith reminds viewers, “You have to connect the dots. Not everything happens in the headlines, but it still shapes the battlefield.” Whatever happens, this case is one to watch closely.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.