by Joseph P. Tartaro | Executive Editor
The Connecticut Bar Association (CBA) will not help defend the state’s controversial gun control law in court as originally encouraged to do so by one of its members and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
According to the Hartford Courant, the organization conducted a referendum on Aug. 20 for its members to determine whether the bar association would join in an amicus brief in support of the law, which, among other things, includes a ban on a broad range of what the legislature and governor choose to term “assault weapons” as well as “high-capacity” magazines.
The Courant reported that the vote was a near dead heat, with 734 votes in favor of joining the defense compared to 729 against. As a result, CBA President Mark Dubois announced that the organization would not join the Brady Center in defending the law, which was passed a few months after the Dec. 14, 2012, mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT.
“In light of the fact that this difference is less than one percent of those voting and considerably less than that as a percentage of our entire membership, I am ruling that the referendum vote will be called as tied,” Dubois said in the statement. “I do not feel that the best interests of the CBA would be served going forward without a clear and empirically defensible result. Accordingly, I have decided not to sign the brief prepared by the Brady Center in support of the appellee in the matter of Shew v. Malloy.”
Dubois later said that the vote may have been even closer, as issues with a new website format may have hampered some members’ efforts to vote.
The challenge to the law was originally filed in the spring of 2013, shortly after the gun law was signed by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy. Captioned for the lead of seven individual plaintiffs, June Shew, the action was sponsored by the Connecticut Citizens Defense League and the Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen, as well as a pair of federally licensed firearms retailers. It drew support from the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the firearms and ammunition trade association headquartered in Connecticut.
In January, US District Court Judge Alfred Covello of Connecticut upheld the constitutionality of the law. In May, lawyers representing the cadre of gun rights groups and gunowners challenging the legality of the bill filed an appeal with the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals in New York.
The Brady Center and other supporters of the gun law are lining up amicus support for Covello’s ruling while NSSF, Gun Owners of America and other organizations have supported the plaintiff’s appeal. So too have the attorneys general of 23 states, including Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.
On July 21, the CBA’s House of Delegates had voted 34 to 15 to join with the Brady Center in defense of the law. By Aug. 5, lawyers opposed to joining the Brady defense had collected sufficient petition signatures to force a referendum, something that Dubois said has not happened in recent memory.
“Why is our bar association taking a position on a matter that has nothing to do with the practice of law?” Hartford lawyer and former Democratic state Chairman John Droney asked in an email typical of hundreds of others inspired by a debate that has continued now for two months.
“There are many members who have sincere, different political views,” Droney wrote to Dubois. “Will the house of delegates now take active positions on abortion, rec pot, immigration, gay/transgender rights, foreign policy, school meals and or income inequality? Where will this end? Whose idea is this? We are lawyers who should respect all points of view and leave the politics and/or ‘nanny state’ activity to other organizations with a political agenda. The bar association is not running for office. Please put a stop to this foolish and aggravating adventure.”
Critics of the decision to join in the defense of the gun law argue that the bar association should be a place where advocacy is left behind and members concentrate on professional development. They argue that it is futile to expect unanimity on values issues among such a large and diverse organization. Other critics say that taking positions on values issues will inevitably put the organization at odds with substantial numbers of potential clients.
Those critics point to two colleagues who apparently voted as bar association members to defend the gun control laws even though their firms represent organizations challenging the law in court.
There also are complaints from members — and at least one former member — that the association has become too political. The association has weighed in recently on capital punishment, same sex marriage, assisted suicide, human trafficking and access to absentee ballots, in addition to gun control.
The office of Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen recognized the political nature of gun control when it thanked the association for its support in defense of the gun control law, although also recognizing that it is not unanimous, according to the Courant.
“We understand that the association may have divergent viewpoints on this matter within their membership, and we respect those views,” said the statement issued by Jepsen’s office.
Dubois said the proposal that the bar association join in the gun law defense was made by Newtown lawyer and bar association Vice President Monte Frank.
“I live in Sandy Hook, have a kid who went to the Sandy Hook School, lost neighbors’ kids and my kid’s third grade teacher,” Frank said in a June 21 email to colleagues, a copy of which was provided to The Courant. “Since then, I have worked hard on gun violence prevention and to bring awareness to this public safety problem and public health crisis.”
