This is a law school blog, and the subject of gunning has been brought up a number of times on this blog. Most of our readers are in agreement that gunning is generally a bad thing. You know the drill: you're in class, the professor is picking on someone and the guy in the bowtie raises his hand in a Hermione-like fashion. A few students stifle groans. A few others are unable to actually stifle them. Eyes are rolled. People sigh heavily. The guy in the bowtie is blissfully unaware of how annoying his questions are as he rattles them off to the professor.

But is gunning always bad?

Savior Gunning

Imagine for a minute that you were the student who got called on. If you're anything like me (read: if you're a 2L or 3L), you probably haven't read. Or you quickly skimmed the case before class. Or you knew you were on call that day, and still didn't read. Suddenly the guy in the bowtie is less annoying, and you look at him in a slightly different light. Maybe he's not just trying to be a showoff. Perhaps, just perhaps, he tuned into the fact that you weren't prepared and did what any good friend would do: he saved you from looking like an idiot in front of your classmates. That doesn't sound self-absorbed. In fact, that's downright selfless. His gunner-like tendencies suddenly seem sweet, endearing.

Until the following class period when you're not on call and you realize that he is just a pompous asshat. It doesn't mean you can't appreciate his pompous asshattery when it works in your favor.

Preemptive Gunning

Change the scenario just a bit, and imagine you're in a class where the professor does the panel system. The panel system (and its brethren) work like this: one or more students are on call on a specific day. This is different from systems where the room is broken into thirds and you might get called on during days when your third of the room is on call. With the panel system, you are usually only on call one day of the semester, and you know which day it is.

Pretend again that you are like me, and that even though you'd known for the entire semester that you were getting called on that day, you still didn't read all of the assignment. Unfortunately, you're still going to get called on.

This is where a little preemptive gunning comes into play. You know you're not ready to discuss Intel v. Hamidi, but you did read that eBay case, and that's up for discussion first. Get your arm ready, and talk about the eBay case until your voice goes hoarse. That way, when you get to the Hamidi case, you've already earned your participation points for the semester, and there are three other people on the panel who haven't said anything yet. You're probably safe. Please note that while preemptive gunning is usually successful, it's not foolproof.

And yeah, your friends might give you a hard time for gunning it up at first, but as long as you don't make it a habit (preemptive gunning is no longer preemptive once you've reached the point where you're no longer at risk of being called on), they'll eventually let you live it down.

Guilt Gunning

There is a little disagreement here, but I am a proponent of guilt gunning. Guilt gunning comes into play when the professor has called on two or more people in a row who aren't prepared. If this happens, and you're familiar enough with the case, I don't see any reason why you can't raise your hand and go for it. I feel bad for professors when it looks like no one has bothered to read. So I've been guilty of guilt gunning more than once in my law school career.

In the end, the only gunning that really grates me is classic gunning: incessant questions, impossible hypotheticals, and irrelevant examples brought up for the sole purpose of hijacking the lecture and making sure everyone knows how smart the gunner is.

Next time on Amicus Curiae: podium trolling.