The American Bar Association ("ABA") is largely looked at as a left-wing associated entity. Some, but not all, state bar associations are looked at similarly. Unlike the American Medical Association, the ABA has very little power. More authority lies with the state bar associations.
Most lawyers I know do not bother with the ABA (I certainly don't). They are not really capable of more than a website and glad-handing in Washington, DC. They issue position points, but, does anybody listen?
To illustrate how bad they are at this, look at the last paragraph of the ABA's statement at:
[url=]http://www.abanet.org/gunviol/secondamend.html[/url]
It reads:
'As lawyers, as representatives of the legal profession, and as recognized experts on the meaning of the Constitution and our system of justice, we share a responsibility to the public and lawmakers to "say what the law is." The ABA is committed to bringing about a more reasoned and lawyerly discussion of the meaning and import of the Second Amendment.'
First off, the states have individual rules for recognizing "experts" in the legal profession, often based on time spent in a particular specialty. And the ABA is an expert in … what? Under whose rules?
Actually, John Marshall famously wrote that only the courts could say "what the law is." Lawyers might contribute, by offering their views, but the courts are the only ones who say so.
(Similarly, all those bags you may have seen on TV, in the movies, or in real life that are stamped with some agency's logo and the word "evidence" are similar misstatements. One judge I know stated: 'It's not evidence until I say it is.')
As for the ABA being committed to 'a more reasoned and lawyerly discussion,' that depends upon what the discussion concludes. The ABA has already made its views abundantly clear. In its collective (and collectivist) mind, no discussion is necessary. Most legal scholars (as I noted in a previous post) have gone in a direction contrary to the ABA's position. If the ABA had any real power, it would stifle the discussion; but, it doesn't and it can't.