What is up with some of the professional organizations taking an anti-gun stance that clearly doesn’t reflect the views of many of their members? I’ve spent a fair bit of time criticizing the American Medical Association for such things, just to name a prime example.

They’re not the only ones, though. Not by a long shot.

Apparently, the American Bar Association–a group that represents attorneys all over this nation, including many pro-gun lawyers–is also beating the anti-gun drum as hard as they can.

The American Bar Association (ABA) has long supported restrictions on the rights of gun owners. While it has defended the due process rights of some very unpopular groups, including, enemy combatants, terror suspects, and convicts on death row, in 2017 the ABA decided that gun owners should not be afforded similar due process protections.

This year, the ABA decided it should increase its assault on the Second Amendment, and perhaps other constitutional protections.

Under the guise of “gun safety regulations,” the ABA adopted three resolutions that should call into question the group’s claim that it seeks to “[e]liminate bias in…the justice system.” It seems that “bias” against gun owners is OK.

The first resolution takes on the most recent anti-gun bogeyman; “ghost guns.”

This term was invented by anti-gun California State Senator Kevin de Leon (D), originally to describe homemade plastic firearms manufactured with the use of a 3-D printer. Following efforts by gun control activists and the mainstream media to provoke the public, “ghost guns” has become an umbrella term for all unserialized firearms. Gun control proponents have shown particular interest in regulating unserialized homemade firearms made through the use of a 3-D printer and those constructed from an unfinished frame or receiver.

Apparently, the ABA has abandoned the plastic firearms aspect, as its release does not mention them, and appears focused on “any unfinished firearm frame or receiver.”

…

The other egregious positions the ABA has taken are requiring law-abiding citizens to seek permission from the government before they can acquire a firearm, and then require those law-abiding gun owners who have received permission to obtain a firearm to store them in a government-approved fashion.

Oh boy.

You’d think attorneys would understand the law better, but considering the massive number of attorneys who become politicians, you shouldn’t.

First, I have yet to see any statistics related to so-called “ghost guns”–using any definition of them, to be fair–and their involvement in crime. At all. We keep hearing that it’s some kind of growing problem, but there’s no context to tell us just what that’s supposed to mean. One case for years jumping up to two cases is a growing problem…it’s just not a major problem.

Without that context, it’s virtually impossible for people to evaluate the situation for themselves. That’s by design.

Regardless, though, the right to keep and bear arms necessarily must include the right to manufacture legal arms yourself. If I’m required to only buy guns made by someone else, particularly if a universal background check measure is also passed, then what we have is a de facto form of registration, whether that’s what it’s meant to be or not.

Plus, it’s not like criminals will stop making their own firearms because the law tells them too. If the law would have that kind of impact, there wouldn’t be criminals in the first place.

Couple that with mandatory storage laws and you’re telling the American people which guns they can have, whether they can even buy them or not, and how they have to be secured regardless of your individual circumstances. The right to keep and bear arms will be effectively meaningless. It won’t be treated like a right, it’ll essentially become a privilege.

Could it be that the American Bar Association wants to create more laws so their members can pick up more clients as people break these laws? It’s possible, but they need to understand that many of those who will be breaking these laws are among the attorneys the group claims to represent.