As a lawyer who has scrupulously avoided joining the American Bar Association (except when a discounted membership allowed me to feel more comfortable when the ABA invited me to speak about ethics at a convention), I found the recent resolution calling for the repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, (“PLCAA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901–7903, consistent with what I now expect of the nation’s largest legal trade association. Over the last several decades years, the ABA has moved steadily leftward on the ideological spectrum, and signs that bias had made it stupid began turning up as early as 1987, when four members of the association’s special committee evaluating Supreme Court nominees found the extremely well-qualified Robert Bork, nominated by President Ronald Reagan, unqualified purely because of his conservative judicial philosophy. This gave Senate Democrats the ammunition they need to reject Bork, thus beginning the destruction of a crucial “democratic norm” that Presidents should be able to choose SCOTUS justices as long as they were sufficiently qualified and experienced.
You can read Resolution 604 here. Ten states (New York, California, Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, and Washington…do you see a pattern?) have enacted “Firearm Industry Responsibility Acts,” and the ABA, being properly woke, is calling for a national version. The resolution purports to be concerned about a “small percentage” of “irresponsible” gun manufacturers who violate consumer protection or engage in deceptive trade practices, and wants the gun industry’s unique immunity from product liability lawsuits to be narrowed and reformed.
Because the latest resolution begins its arguments with the usual scaremongering statistics compiled by anti-Second Amendment activists—“Approximately 46,000 Americans are killed by a gun every year—approximately 125 people every day,” I find the resolution to be disingenuous, a “camel’s nose in the tent” tactic to make gun manufacturers so vulnerable to lawsuits that the business becomes untenable, and guns become so expensive that the right to bear arms is illusory.
Ethics Alarms 
Any policy choice that would directly benefit the profession economically is inherently a conflict of interest. Eliminating immunity from tort claims when the product functions as designed would open a huge potential market for trial lawyers who specialize in product liability from both sides. This type of behavior might be expected from private firms that lobby for rules that benefit them by either creating barriers to entry or would increase the top and/or bottom line. That is bad enough but this is the ultimate ambulance chasing scheme.
What deceptive trade practices do they have in mind?
What consumer protection laws do they have in mind?
I wonder if it’s (still) true that roughly 2 out of every 3 gun deaths in the U.S. are suicides. Pretty sure it is.
And I wonder if it’s (still) true that many of the “mass shooting” we hear about are also suicides…though in those cases the one committing suicide doesn’t want to die in anonymity, so he/she seeks 15 minutes of fame by volunteering others for death as well. Pretty sure it is.
As much as the Left wants it to be true, gun violence – while a problem in this country – is nowhere near the biggest problem. So again, I wonder if it’s (still) true that making firearms harder to purchase legally does nothing to move the needle in the right direction. Pretty sure it is.