One of the more surprising groups to stand up for gun rights leading up to the Bruen case was public defenders. They argued that gun control negatively impacts certain groups, which is certainly true.
It’s not difficult to see how lawyers might just see the negative consequences of gun control.
However, that’s just one group of attorneys. Others aren’t quite so realistic, apparently.
That includes the American Bar Association.
The ABA House of Delegates passed two gun control resolutions at the 2022 ABA Annual Meeting in Chicago. One urges lawmakers to prevent gun purchases from moving forward by default after three business days, even if the check is incomplete. The second calls for more to be done to prevent violent dating partners and stalkers from buying or owning firearms.
The ABA’s call for enhanced gun controls comes after several deadly mass shootings this year. In May, in Uvalde, Texas, a gunman killed 19 children and two teachers at an elementary school. And at a Fourth of July parade in the Chicago suburb of Highland Park, a gunman shot and killed seven people and wounded dozens more.
Calls for tighter background checks followed. Resolution 601, passed on Monday, urges state and federal officials to give law enforcement more time to complete background checks to prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands.
Except that time limit was put in place for a reason.
It prevented the government from making it impossible to get a gun because it was impossible to get a background check completed.
Historically, those delayed background checks are actually “passes” more than 95 percent of the time. Many of those remaining five percent are people who likely didn’t even know they were prohibited at the time and will comply with the law going forward.
Criminals aren’t going to the local gun store to get firearms, for the most part.
If the ABA wants to reduce the problems, perhaps instead suggesting more resources for NICS so there aren’t delays would make a lot more sense. It has the benefit of speeding up the process for law-abiding citizens while also minimizing the chances someone who shouldn’t be allowed to have a gun will get one because of a delay.
Now, on the upside, there’s absolutely no reason for any lawmaker to actually listen to the ABA on this. Yes, they’re a lobby, but I’m pretty sure they’re not going to expend much political capital on gun control when there are likely bigger fish for them to want to fry.
Yet it’s fascinating to see how little even attorneys understand gun control.
I mean, the waiting period is one thing, but Congress literally just voted to close the so-called boyfriend loophole. Is the ABA suggesting that didn’t happen? Or are they trying to tell us that it’s not enough before we’ve even had a chance to see if the law works at all?
Either way, it’s evidence that just because someone has a law degree, it doesn’t mean they know what they’re talking about.
Further, it should be noted that just because the ABA represents lawyers, it doesn’t mean lawyers necessarily agree with them. Just something to keep in mind.