Aclu


PDA






svtruth
August 12, 2005, 11:38 AM
I've asked this on another forum, but the more the merrier.
The ACLU bases their anti gun ownership stance (policy #47 on their site) on an old SCOTUS ruling that the second Amendment refers not to an individual's right, but a collective one.
Didn't the Supremes recently rule the other way, tha 2A refers to an individual right?
Hoping someone here is better informed than I, Thanks in advance.

If you enjoyed reading about "Aclu" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
foghornl
August 12, 2005, 11:52 AM
My Not So Humble Opinion...

A SSinine
C ommunist
L iars
U nion

Taurus 66
August 12, 2005, 11:55 AM
The ACLU hasn't A Clu!

boofus
August 12, 2005, 11:58 AM
Anti-American Communist Lawyer's Union

They are nothing but bloody hypocrites. My boss listens to that America hating pacifika crap on the radio and I have to put up with ACLU rants and ravings.

When they 'quote' the Bill of Rights anyone that knows the real text will notice they leave out the section of the 1st that says 'nor prohibit free exercise [of religion]' and they skip the 2nd amendment completely.

They are nothing but communist revisionists looking to undermine everything this country stands for.

javafiend
August 12, 2005, 12:07 PM
The ACLU bases their anti gun ownership stance (policy #47 on their site) on an old SCOTUS ruling that the second Amendment refers not to an individual's right, but a collective one.

That's not quite what they ruled. The US vs. Miller decision in 1939 was a very narrow ruling. See Supreme Court Cases. (http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndsup.html)

Nazirite
August 12, 2005, 12:13 PM
The ACLU wants a socialistic utopia, this will never happen unless the population is disarmed. They can’t get their way through legislation so they depend on the courts. Personally, I put them right besides the terrorists when considering how dangerous they are to the country. Instead of bombs or airplanes they use lawyers.

R.H. Lee
August 12, 2005, 12:17 PM
How can a 'right' belong only to a group, yet exclude the individuals of that group? What is the definition of a group? What is its composition? Must the group be 'officially' recognized and by whom? Government? That would mean that government is the grantor and rescinder of rights, which is the collectivist/statist mindset, and in agreement with ACLU philosophy.

We're back to the prior argument, where some of you maintained that rights do not exist absent of government sanction (seemingly in agreement with the ACLU).

The exercise of anything that requires permission is not a right, it is a privilege.

hso
August 12, 2005, 12:25 PM
To address the question instead of ranting off on the whether the ACLU is a good thing or not, Sorry, no. Here's their position from their website -



"Why doesn't the ACLU support an individual's
unlimited right to keep and bear arms?"

BACKGROUND
The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.

We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.

IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.

ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47

ARGUMENTS, FACTS, QUOTES

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The Second Amendment to the Constitution

"Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to
maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there
can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a firearm."


U.S. v. Warin (6th Circuit, 1976)

Unless the Constitution protects the individual's right to own all kinds of arms, there is no principled way to oppose reasonable restrictions on handguns, Uzis or semi-automatic rifles.

If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms. Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms. Yet few, if any, would argue that the Second Amendment gives individuals the unlimited right to own any weapons they please. But as soon as we allow governmental regulation of any weapons, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict arms, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction.

The 1939 case U.S. v. Miller is the only modern case in which the Supreme Court has addressed this issue. A unanimous Court ruled that the Second Amendment must be interpreted as intending to guarantee the states' rights to maintain and train a militia. "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument," the Court said.

In subsequent years, the Court has refused to address the issue. It routinely denies cert. to almost all Second Amendment cases. In 1983, for example, it let stand a 7th Circuit decision upholding an ordinance in Morton Grove, Illinois, which banned possession of handguns within its borders. The case, Quilici v. Morton Grove 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied 464 U.S. 863 (1983), is considered by many to be the most important modern gun control case.

In short - The SCOTUS has not recently ruled that the 2nd is an individual right and the ACLU works from the Miller decision which was a collective rights decision instead of an individual right decision. It would be marvelous if a case would come before them that was based on such a clear principal, but unlikely. As a result the ACLU still has the position that the 2nd is not an individual right.

As an aside - It would be interesting to see the SCOTUS make a clear interpretation of the 2nd Ammendment to the Constitution of the United States and then see the ACLU defend the pro gun rights proponents, some of which would probably rather end up in prison than have the ACLU defend them.

Control Group
August 12, 2005, 12:35 PM
Didn't the Supremes recently rule the other way, tha 2A refers to an individual right?
In short, no. You may be thinking of the recent statement out of the Attorney General's office asserting that RKBA is an individual, rather than a collective right, but that doesn't have the force of law or jurisprudence.

boofus
August 12, 2005, 12:38 PM
But S.397 DOES have the force of law once it is passed by the House and signed by W.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.

(a) Findings- Congress finds the following:

(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.

:D

Control Group
August 12, 2005, 01:03 PM
:what:

I haven't felt this stupid in years. I had no idea that language was in S.397. This is what I get for only skimming the bill, I suppose. I was in support of it before because it just makes sense to not hold manufacturers liable for what people do with their legal products, I didn't realize it also took such a significant step forward for RKBA in this country.

If this passes the House, it opens the door for a direct attack on both Miller and the closing of the machine gun registry (I don't think one could realistically succeed in arguing that the tax and registration are themselves infringements, but the closing of the registry is obviously such an infringement).

Vang
August 12, 2005, 01:20 PM
I am a little surprised that people here attack the ACLU so strongly. They are very useful for the defense of many of our liberties, they just have a ridiculous position on the 2nd. That said, they don't actively attack gun possession, they just don't do anything to defend it.

Nazirite, how in the world do you think the ACLU wants a "socialist utopia?" That's just libel.

Rebar
August 12, 2005, 01:26 PM
The ACLU has an agenda, a hard-left agenda, and they only take cases that advance that agenda. Their stance on the 2nd amendment, their attacks on Christians, and their crusade to destroy the Boy Scouts, clearly shows this.

Vang
August 12, 2005, 01:36 PM
Their refusal to take 2nd amendment cases is the only objectionable item on that list.

Attacks on state-religion blending (of any kind; the ACLU often attacks very small rights violations) will appear to be attacks on Christians. When's the last time you saw Muslim symbols in government?

The only problem with the Boy Scouts is that they have federal funding. When one gets federal funds, one has obligations beyond what one would have if one was not.

Other than cases involving the 2nd (which, while disappointing, is likely done to please their donors), what cases does the ACLU refuse to take because of their politics?

boofus
August 12, 2005, 01:38 PM
They refuse to acknowledge that free exercise of religion means exactly that. If 100 students want to pray and 1 person doesn't. Then 99 people should pray and 1 person twiddle their thumbs. Not have 100 people banned from prayer.

Listen to some of their spokespeople talk on some of the commie radio stations and you will see their true agenda and hypocrisy. They routinely censor out sections of the Bill of Rights that they do not agree with.

Vang
August 12, 2005, 01:41 PM
On their website, they specifically list what rights violations they are concerned with. They dont' claim to protect all of our liberties. I'm fine with that, they protect many of my liberties, for which I am grateful.

I think you have mis-construed some of their cases regarding pray in schools. School sponsorship of prayer, even student led prayer, is what they attack, not praying in general.

Control Group
August 12, 2005, 01:42 PM
They support Affirmative Action.

That policy alone gives the lie to all the high-manded idealism they spout about equality and freedom and civil liberties.

Telperion
August 12, 2005, 01:46 PM
Vang-

They sat on their hands in the Kelo v. New London case. In fact, on the "Issues" column on their home page, I can't find an entry for "property rights". Certainly nothing there for "right to keep and bear arms".

They dont' claim to protect all of our liberties. I'm fine with that, they protect many of my liberties, for which I am grateful.From their "About us" (http://www.aclu.org/about/aboutmain.cfm) page, the ACLU bills itself as "our nation's guardian of liberty" and describes its mission as to "conserve America's original civic values - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights". Yet it is clear there are some elements of the Constitution and Bill of Rights that they do not support.

Mongo the Mutterer
August 12, 2005, 01:46 PM
I support Affirmative Action as well.

My plan has five magazines.

Vang
August 12, 2005, 01:46 PM
I do not like Affirmative Action as a policy.

I do agree with the former posters that the ACLU has a leftist agenda, but I do not take that as a negative, considering that protection of my right to speech is a leftist idea, among other things (as well as crap like Affirmative Action, unfortunately).

That said, their position is that they are protecting liberties. I'm not quite sure we could say they are attempting to restrict my Constitional liberties with support of Affirmative Action.
---
Telperion: Wow. I just checked their site. You're right, and that's very depressing. I was considering giving them money next year, and now I will not. Thanks for pointing that out.

I'm much less inclined to defend them now that it's clear there are two issues they ignore. I'm not quite sure what that suggests about them, but it isn't good.

Everything below the line was editen in after I saw Telperion's post, which I did not see when I wrote the original.

R.H. Lee
August 12, 2005, 01:49 PM
School sponsorship of prayer, even student led prayer, is what they attack, not praying in general.
This kind of torturous twisting of logic is exactly why I can’t co-exist with leftists. How does allowing someone the exercise of their constitutional right to prayer become ‘sponsorship’?

And why don’t the Boy Scouts have the right to freedom of association?

That said, their position is that they are protecting liberties No. They do exactly the opposite. Impede individual liberties.

Vang
August 12, 2005, 01:53 PM
It's not twisted logic. Suppose the school makes time for a prayer at the beginning of a football game. Assume that a student leads a prayer at this time. The school is sponsoring the student's prayer by making a specific time for it.

RileyMC: Read my edit. That said, I fail to see how their defense of many of the amendments (1st, 4th) is an impedement to individual rights.

cuchulainn
August 12, 2005, 02:01 PM
To the original point of this thread:

My reaction to the ACLU's RKBA stance is that they apparently didn't want to deal with it, so they looked for an excuse to ignore it. When they found an argument that seemed to let them dismiss the RKBA and move onto other issues, they adopted it without much thought.

Their position more of a mindless copout and less a legal interpretation ...

... much less.

The ACLU's RKBA stance actually runs counter to their original tactics. The ACLU made their name attacking and bringing down supposedly "settled law." Yet, on the RKBA they wash their hands of it with the excuse that it's "settled law."

Control Group
August 12, 2005, 02:01 PM
From the ACLU's "about" page (with thanks to Telperion for the link):
The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:
...
Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.
This is in direct contravention to their stance on Affirmative Action, which specifically demands that race and sex be regarded in employment decisions.

Control Group
August 12, 2005, 02:05 PM
My reaction to the ACLU's RKBA stance is that they apparently didn't want to deal with it, so they looked for an excuse to ignore it. When they found an argument that seemed to let them dismiss the issue and move onto other issues, they adopted it without much thought.

Their position more of a mindless copout and less a legal interpretation ...

... much less.
Given their ongoing activism against Tasers, I strongly suspect that the ACLU's position is based on being against RKBA more than it is on being uninvolved with it. I acknowledge the possibility that I'm simply taking my general distaste for the organization and generalizing it into unfounded assumptions. You could be right.

Either way, of course, their stated rationalization is neither legally nor ethically sound, so I suppose their intent doesn't particularly matter.

Mongo the Mutterer
August 12, 2005, 02:07 PM
Vang -- tell you what -- do some research on transnational socialism or tranzis and you will see what the ACLU is. Also check into the National Lawyers Guild.

Here is the bottom line... these elitist scum want to rule us with their socialist ideals, and with themselves set up as unelected rulers. They can't do it through elections because they and their ideals are unelectable, so they do it through the courts.

They try to do it through the UN and the EU as well. :barf: :barf: :barf:

DirksterG30
August 12, 2005, 02:10 PM
The fact is, the founder of the ACLU, Rodger Baldwin was an avowed communist:


Rodger Baldwin established the ACLU in 1917, born in Boston he was a self proclaimed atheist and a World War I draft dodger. Dodging the draft led him to found the organization to help others in their draft evasion process. Baldwin, a Harvard graduate, once wrote in 1935:
“I have been to Europe several times, mostly in connection with international radical activities and have traveled in the United States to areas of conflict over workers rights to strike and organize. My chief aversions is the system of greed, private profit, privilege, and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it to the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment. Therefore, I AM FOR SOCIALISM, DISARMAMENT AND ULTIMATELY, FOR THE ABOLISHING OF THE STATE ITSELF. I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. COMMUNISM IS THE GOAL.”

quoted from this website: http://modesty.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_modesty_archive.html

cuchulainn
August 12, 2005, 02:13 PM
Given their ongoing activism against Tasers, I strongly suspect that the ACLU's position is based on being against RKBA more than it is on being uninvolved with it. Perhaps. But their RKBA copout actually has been around for a good while -- 1980s? (anyone know?). They've maintained neutrality (well, other than giving comfort to the enemy by mindlessly parroting the antis' "settled law" argument).

I suspect that the organization chose neutrality because a large number of its members ($$$$) were not neutral. Attacking the RKBA would undermine their image as fighters for rights, but fighting for it would undermine their cash.

Have they begun to slip into anti-RKBA advocacy? Perhaps. We'll see, I suppose.

MrTuffPaws
August 12, 2005, 02:26 PM
In response to the OP, Ashcroft had the USDOJ issue a statement that said the 2nd was an individual right. That memo had no legal force behind it and was pretty much just a statement of opinion. Under the new leadership of the DOJ, that memo no longer represents the DOJ's opinion.

As for the ACLU, they are hypocrites when it comes to the 2nd, and their argument for their opinion is about as stupid as it gets, but they do well standing up for liberties in other areas. I am glad they are around even if I don't agree with everything they do.

DirksterG30
August 12, 2005, 02:37 PM
If anything, the ACLU are hypocrites most of the time. Sure, they pick the right side once in a while, but for the most part their advocacy is not for protecting the Bill of Rights and our freedoms, but in undermining or distorting our existing rights and creating new rights that suit their socialist agenda.

GEM
August 12, 2005, 02:38 PM
So if 397 passes and George signs it, does that actually mean he would take some action. It would clear that the DC handgun ban would be a target - and which he has done nothing about.

I'll believe it when I see it.

Control Group
August 12, 2005, 02:45 PM
So if 397 passes and George signs it, does that actually mean he would take some action. It would clear that the DC handgun ban would be a target - and which he has done nothing about.

I'll believe it when I see it.
I had forgotten about DC; but of course, this would open the door to an attack on every gun law in DC (as opposed to in the states, which would necessitate the SCOTUS incorporating the 2nd).

As far as will he take some action, no, of course not. If anything is to happen, it's going to happen because citizens bring suit for their rights in federal court.

longeyes
August 12, 2005, 03:01 PM
Whatever the ACLU was or could have been, it has been hijacked by a cadre of people with a twisted agenda that is highly selective in its perspective on what constitutes individual rights.

DelayedReaction
August 12, 2005, 06:08 PM
Given their ongoing activism against Tasers, I strongly suspect that the ACLU's position is based on being against RKBA more than it is on being uninvolved with it. I acknowledge the possibility that I'm simply taking my general distaste for the organization and generalizing it into unfounded assumptions. You could be right.

What action are they taking against Tasers?

Can someone show me proof that they have actively worked against the right to keep and bear arms? I don't mind people not supporting us as long as they don't actively oppose us.

boofus
August 12, 2005, 06:17 PM
Look up the roster of slimey lawyers in the employ of VPC/Brady/IANSA/George Soros. I'd wager a good number are members of ACLU as well.

javafiend
August 12, 2005, 08:36 PM
I'm gonna join the ACLU just to show up at their little coffee clatches and argue for a RKBA.

hifi
August 12, 2005, 09:08 PM
I support the ACLU when they stand up for civil rights issues, but their stance on the 2nd Amendment is not only hypocritical, but also very telling of their fan base.

Brett Bellmore
August 12, 2005, 09:46 PM
I suspect that the organization chose neutrality because a large number of its members ($$$$) were not neutral. Attacking the RKBA would undermine their image as fighters for rights, but fighting for it would undermine their cash.

In fact, I had a chance to discuss this issue with Ira Glasser, one time head of the ACLU, back in the mid 80's. That was exactly his defense: That so many of the ACLU's financial backers were anti-gun, that being honest about the 2nd amendment would mean financial ruin.

A pathetic rationalization then, and now; Even then the NRA had a far larger membership, and was wealthier. There was no doubt that the ACLU would have brought in more backers and membership by defending the 2nd amendment, than they'd have lost.

But rationalizations don't have to be true, they just have to salve your conscience.

Moondoggie
August 12, 2005, 09:50 PM
The ACLU.....

NOT American,

NOT Civil,

NOT Libertarian,

NOT a Union.

I particularly abhore their extortionist tactics of threatening to bankrupt through expensive federal lawsuits anybody (particularly small school districts) who balks at compliance with their "cease and desist" threat letters.

IIRC, Baldwin was imprisoned as an anarchist. He was never rehabilitated, just got more clever/devious about it.

The ACLU now functions inside a zone that I like to call "The legitimicy of longevity". Big money for decades has given them a facade of respectability as their bastion. They now attract a cadre of anti-establishment young lawyers looking to make a name for themselves. Think of the oblique troublemakers you knew in HS...the springbutts that always wanted to argue with the teacher about every little thing.....that's your present day ACLU lawyer. Unwitting dupes of rich and powerful elitists that embrace communism and see themselves as the future commissars.

hifi
August 12, 2005, 09:53 PM
A pathetic rationalization then, and now; Even then the NRA had a far larger membership, and was wealthier. There was no doubt that the ACLU would have brought in more backers and membership by defending the 2nd amendment, than they'd have lost.

Good point.

Taurus 66
August 12, 2005, 11:05 PM
You trouble me moondoggie, but only for the part in your breakdown of an acronym you say "NOT Libertarian". My God, I hope you don't associate what's only libertarian as what's purely American. There are lots of us patriots out here who don't even associate with any political party at all (as this is not a requirement in order to be a patriot).

The ACLU is garbage and is dangerous to America, I'll admit that much! It has to be some sort of communist front since it hasn't been heard or seen from much before the '70's That's about when the cold war was on a decline since its <ice skating and hockey popularity> yet the idea of a marxist revolution was in the plans. Any idiot with a 16 box of Crayola could color this out. Did the ACLU exist before th '70's?

Eh, who cares really?!

There's too many different types of people from different countries here now, and all have different ideas of what "freedom" really is. The World's Lost! There's really Zero Hope! And the best you can do any more is to simply let the disease of politics (RIP) take its natural course, like a bubonic plague, just ever watch out for your family, friends, and forget the rest.

MrTuffPaws
August 12, 2005, 11:25 PM
NOT American,

NOT Civil,

NOT Libertarian,

NOT a Union.

:rolleyes:

It is Civil Liberties Union, not Libertarian.

Moondoggie
August 12, 2005, 11:43 PM
"NOT Libertarian" or "NOT Civil Liberties Oriented"....you guys are splitting hairs over my employment of a little poetic license.

The long term goal of the ACLU is judicial tyranny...the imposition of their rigid brand of PC via unelected means. Their plan is insidious...make a small inroad, wait for folks to become accustomed to more jucicial activism, make another small inroad. Same thing we've seen with regard to RKBA all over the country for decades.

In any event, they are anarchists/communists and have zero interest in civil liberties; only in the final imposition of their agenda. Why else are their causes celebre' protecting criminals and eradicating any expression of religion from the public forum? Ever heard of them defending a person accused of a firearms law violation?

The ACLU has been around a lot longer than the 70's. Do some homework and read up on their history...it's all there.

Taurus 66
August 13, 2005, 12:16 AM
The long term goal of the ACLU is judicial tyranny

met with earlier:

The ACLU is garbage and is dangerous to America

Did I stutter somewhere? I'd like to give the proper emoticon to show all's 'okeedoke', but it's just not always possible.

We should just be cautioned that the ACLU has their own lawyer on the US Supreme Court - Ruth Bador Ginsburg. She is there now, and dangerous as any gun you have in your collection! She is a far distant shout from what the US Constitutuion really means to us po' folk, hick, uni-toothed, redneck, crooked shootin', lazy, jug blowin', back yard, underground, 2nd Amendment hillbillies.

mrapathy2000
August 13, 2005, 04:35 AM
one thing I dont quite understand nor looked into.

Why hasnt the Republican party or gun owners attempted to create a rival group that will support the constitution the way it should be. its high time if it has not been done. if it has been done its high time it gets support

Brett Bellmore
August 13, 2005, 09:23 AM
They have. They just don't get much press. And they tend not to be your one stop shopping solution, but instead specialize in various aspects of your civil liberties. Like FIRE for the rights of students.

svtruth
August 13, 2005, 10:54 AM
Well, I sure learned a lot.
Thank you all.

Mongo the Mutterer
August 13, 2005, 11:20 AM
Well this thread has calmed down, so maybe a little fire would help (no flames, however).

For those of you who don't remember, or don't wish to:

United States Constitution
Article III
Section 3 - Treason

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Okay, Lemmee start a list of those who should be tried, and if convicted, should be executed, for treason:

Jane Fonda
John F. Kerry (if his visit to Paris to speak to the NV is true)

any additions, folks?

If you enjoyed reading about "Aclu" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!