Last month, the American Bar Association (ABA), via its Standing Committee on Gun Violence, passed yet another anti-gun resolution at their annual meeting in Toronto (the venue should serve as a clue regarding their commitment to things “American”). Yes, this is the same American Bar Association with a stated mission to serve lawyers, law students, and the public by “defending liberty and delivering justice as the national representative of the legal profession.” Instead, the ABA has worked to dismantle the Second Amendment and stigmatize gun ownership for decades.
The ABA’s latest anti-gun effort, Resolution 608, urges federal, state, local, territorial, and tribal governments to impose “significant civil and criminal” penalties on gun owners or adults in custody or control of a firearm who do not promptly report the gun’s loss or theft to law enforcement. The Committee manifestly did not do their legal research, as if they did, they would have discovered there is no reliable evidence that these types of laws stop crime or any other negative outcome.
The resolution additionally included “safeguards to protect a person’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when adopting such statutes, rules, and regulations.” This is a tacit acknowledgement that criminals prohibited from possessing firearms cannot constitutionally be subject to the lost or stolen reporting requirements, as that would be tantamount to forcing the person to acknowledge the illegal possession.
So, to recap, ABA, self-styled defenders of justice, want criminal penalties imposed on law-abiding gun owners whose firearms are stolen by criminals, if the gun owners fail to report the incident to police or maybe just miss a reporting deadline. This could effectively turn the victims of criminals into criminals themselves.
The point of this measure is obviously not to protect the gun owner or the public, for that matter. It is also unlikely to help police recover the gun. What it might do, particularly in conjunction with “safe storage” or firearm owner licensing requirements, is give police evidence to blame the gun owner for not being more careful or diligent, with attendant negative consequences.
According to the ABA website, the Standing Committee on Gun Violence has been quite busy over the years with various resolutions that would support anti-gun and unconstitutional efforts, such as enforcing mandatory storage laws, expanding “gun-free zones,” supporting “red flag” laws, opposing Stand Your Ground self-defense laws, working to require firearm purchase permits, and limiting the availability of concealed carry permits, just to name a few. For more information on their unfortunate body of work, visit this link.
Newly elected ABA President Michelle Behnke recently and confusingly announced at the ABA Annual Meeting that her goal is to “redouble [ABA’s] efforts to defend liberty and pursue justice.” People like her are the reason most Americans can recite a few lawyer jokes, none reflecting favorably on lawyers.
The real joke, however, is the ABA.
Thankfully, the Second Amendment community isn’t the only one familiar with both the hypocrisy and the fading significance of the once relevant legal organization. Back in May, United States Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a scathing letter to the ABA withdrawing access and consideration by the organization regarding the screening of judicial nominees. The ABA has long had a standing committee on issuing ratings for individuals nominated to lifetime Article III judicial positions. Bondi’s letter makes clear, however, that this is yet another ABA effort that has been hijacked by partisan activists:
Unfortunately, the ABA no longer functions as a fair arbiter of nominees' qualifications, and its ratings invariably and demonstrably favor nominees put forth by Democratic administrations. The ABA’s steadfast refusal to fix the bias in its ratings process, despite criticism from Congress, the Administration, and the academy, is disquieting.
Apparently, the ABA has been too busy participating in one-sided political activism or repeatedly suing the Trump administration to live up to its own motto to “serve equally” the members of the legal profession. With their fervent work on other constitutional rights, why not the Second Amendment? Where is the committee on Ensuring Due Process for All Citizens, Including Law-Abiding Gun Owners? The Committee on Understanding All Individual, Constitutional Rights including the Second Amendment?
Instead, the Standing Committee on Gun Violence continues to take tax-deductible donations while it works on defeating, not defending, liberty for gun owners. The Committee website states “The ABA's Standing Committee on Gun Violence is a unique, non-partisan voice. Your tax-deductible contribution will support its work on evidence-informed policy, education, and advocacy.” But when do the jokes stop with the ABA?
The ABA’s continued activism against the Second Amendment should raise serious concerns for those inside and outside of the legal profession about the organization’s ability to remain relevant to its stated mission and goals. For lawyers, thankfully, membership in the ABA is voluntary and waning. The ABA is assuredly NOT the voice of the legal profession at large.
The Standing Committee on Gun Violence’s latest effort is yet further proof that gun owners, and true advocates of liberty, should not look to the ABA for justice.
More Like This From Around The NRA
