Pro-gun Texas ACLU


PDA






TequilaMockingbird
February 5, 2006, 01:18 AM
Law allowing guns in vehicles protects rights (http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2005/03/law-allowing-guns-in-vehicles-protects.html)

This is interesting. Scott Henson is a gun-owning ACLU guy who gets the big picture.
Even if you oppose gun violence - and who doesn't? - it's hard to deny that the erosion of individual Second Amendment rights has had the unintended consequence of allowing law enforcement to abrogate other important liberties.

Amen to that (although I'd quibble with his use of the term "gun violence"), and it's good (if a little bit wierd) to see the ACLU lobby in favor of last year's proposal to allow law-abiding citizens to carry guns in their cars. It ultimately passed.

Even wierder was the spectable of some district attorneys - such as Harris County DA Chuck Rosenthal (Republican) - openly voicing their intention essentially to ignore the provisions of the law, and to continue filing unlawful gun possession cases against law-abiding Texans.

Scott's work got noticed by Prof. Volokh over at The Volokh Conspiracy (http://volokh.com/posts/1137534663.shtml).

If you enjoyed reading about "Pro-gun Texas ACLU" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Dannyboy
February 5, 2006, 11:26 AM
Is that the Texas ACLU position or the position of one man in the Texas ACLU?

Maxwell
February 5, 2006, 12:08 PM
If its the official position, I might actually think better of them.
ACLU could probly make a mint fighting for gun rights.

Soybomb
February 5, 2006, 12:46 PM
I may stand alone but I'm not all that disappointed that the ACLU just stays out of firearms. The NRA is the big force in gun rights and the aclu takes care of the rest of the bill of rights. Just seems like its a more effective use of their funding to not get into guns and keep doing work in the areas where they're the big player.

geekWithA.45
February 5, 2006, 01:18 PM
Soybomb:

The ACLU actively takes the position that the 2nd Amendment is a collective right that pertains only to state militias. In so doing, they declare themselves our opponents.

That's a problem that goes way beyond merely dividing up the workload.

Maxwell
February 5, 2006, 01:24 PM
Im not happy with the ACLU because they tend to argue alot of stupid things... but I thinking of it this way:

The problem I see is right now we've got alot of noisy folks doing their damnest to erase the 2nd amendment by any means possible. These types spawn new pieces of anti-gun legislation faster than our side can seem to knock them down.
Because their side of the argument is popular with politicians, it dosnt take much push to get some new nonsense in motion.


ACLU has a habit of picking up alot of cases that seem otherwise indefensable. Sometimes they win, often then dont, but the sheer numbers and annoyance makes politicians skittish of going up against them.
Assuming they can be made to march in our direction, that cover fire helps to keep the enemy at bay while your other forces can do their work.
Hell, they damn near killed Christmas. Im willing to wager that if their picking up our less winnable lawsuits and run that for our side, it would be alot easier for NRA and the rest to focus on more key issues.

We can start attacking more important things like gun registries, ballistics libraries, "smart guns", NFA, and such. Instead of quaking in our boots every time a homeowner shoots a burgular.

Now Im not a real fan of any organisation that would defend pedophiles or nazis... but at the same time Im not a democrat or liberal either. I accept any reasonable help thats going my way, if only so far as it takes me.
The focus here should be what advances RKBA.

ElTacoGrande
February 5, 2006, 05:31 PM
Now Im not a real fan of any organisation that would defend pedophiles or nazis... but at the same time Im not a democrat or liberal either. I accept any reasonable help thats going my way, if only so far as it takes me.
The focus here should be what advances RKBA.

They don't "defend" pdeophiles. They just want to make sure that accused pedophiles get fair trials. Any of us could be accused of a crime and we all benefit from fair trials. They also want to make sure that after a conviction happens, that person still is treated in a fair way. That fair treatment, even for the worst convicted criminals, is what distinguishes our system from systems I would call "uncivilized". And they don't defend Nazis; they defend Nazis' right to free expression of their beliefs. A good chunk of my family was wiped out by Nazis 70 years ago, and I still support Nazis' right to peaceful expression of their views. Of course, I own guns so if those expressions ever become non-peaceful, and a direct threat to me, I'll be able to handle the situation better than my ancestors did, but as long as its peaceful, they should be able to say it.

But I agree on the 2nd Amend issue. I will never support the ACLU until they start supporting the 2nd. They have some great lawyers who achieve some amazing victories. The 2nd amend movement often does not have such good legal help. If the ACLU lent us some of their legal firepower, it would be devestatingly effective, I can assure you.

beerslurpy
February 5, 2006, 05:50 PM
They don't "defend" pdeophiles. They just want to make sure that accused pedophiles get fair trials. Any of us could be accused of a crime and we all benefit from fair trials. They also want to make sure that after a conviction happens, that person still is treated in a fair way. That fair treatment, even for the worst convicted criminals, is what distinguishes our system from systems I would call "uncivilized". And they don't defend Nazis; they defend Nazis' right to free expression of their beliefs. A good chunk of my family was wiped out by Nazis 70 years ago, and I still support Nazis' right to peaceful expression of their views. Of course, I own guns so if those expressions ever become non-peaceful, and a direct threat to me, I'll be able to handle the situation better than my ancestors did, but as long as its peaceful, they should be able to say it.

Bravo. Its the principle, not the immediate result of defending that principle. We are all much better off when individual rights are afforded to the less appetizing members of society. Nazis and communists espouse ridiculous ideas- all the more reason that the public hears those ideas and the outraged rebuttals that naturally follow.

I wish the ACLU would get around to recognizing RKBA, if only because a society that depends on the State for protection is inherently predisposed to see individual rights as been less worthy of protection. If the state can decide how valuable your life is, how can they not also have discretion over your speech, religion, politics or lifestyle chocies?

Soybomb
February 5, 2006, 05:56 PM
Soybomb:

The ACLU actively takes the position that the 2nd Amendment is a collective right that pertains only to state militias. In so doing, they declare themselves our opponents.

That's a problem that goes way beyond merely dividing up the workload.
Fantastic, their actions are neutral however. Show me where they have worked against 2nd amendment rights. If I was opposed to any organization that didn't mirror 100% of my views on the world, well I would be opposed to probably every organization. I value the entire bill of rights and think they do good work on the whole, while not harming second amendment rights.

http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html

While that might be a written position, it is nothing more than that. Until they act on that position in a negative way, I think they're throwing out the baby with the bath water.

maxwell I'm surprised you think we need the aclu's help that badly. Its an organization with 500,000+ members, the NRA has 4.3 million. Thats actually what troubles me about the NRA, they seem like alot of bark but more concerned about getting people to renew with the promise of crappy merchandise than legal issues.

TequilaMockingbird
February 5, 2006, 06:49 PM
Is that the Texas ACLU position or the position of one man in the Texas ACLU?

Excellent question. From Pack your pistola and hit the road (http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2005/03/pack-your-pistola-and-hit-road.html) we read:

Testifying on behalf of ACLU of Texas at a meeting of the Texas House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee, I [Scott Henson] spoke in favor of HB 823 by Keel, which I discussed Monday, allowing Texas drivers to carry a firearm in their vehicle. The National Rifle Association was there in force behind it. Like Sputnik from the Motorcycle Rights Association, though, I complained about a change in the committee substitute that defined "traveling" as only occurring when a driver "crosses or intends to cross a county line."

Such language would invite drivers to lie to police officers, I told the committee, since the only defense to carrying a gun in one's car would be to say you're preparing to travel to the next county. Rep. Debbie Riddle surprised us both, I'd guess, by agreeing with me, declaring that she lived four minutes from the Harris County line north of her home, but didn't feel the need to carry a firearm traveling into Montgomery County. By contrast, she could travel for two hours south through Houston, depending on traffic, without reaching a county line, and she felt more like she needed personal protection for that trip.

Scott Henson is the director of the ACLU's Police Accountability Project.

I'm actually thinking of writing out a nice fat check to the Texas ACLU just because they lined up on the right side of this Second Amendment issue.

Standing Wolf
February 5, 2006, 07:02 PM
The NRA is the big force in gun rights and the aclu takes care of the rest of the bill of rights.

Both organizations are awfully selective in their defense of the nation's civil rights. Of the two, I'd say the NRA does the better, more comprehensive job. The ACLU's stated "interpretation" of the Second Amendment is leftist extremist through and through, which makes me doubt how seriously it takes the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Maxwell
February 5, 2006, 08:50 PM
I'm surprised you think we need the aclu's help that badly.

The battle line for me is currently drawn at weather I can own a weapon or not. Its not just firearms for many US citizens, their down to weather they have a right to defend themselves at all.
A blatent government violation of the 2nd amendment.

I tried to buy a gun not too long ago. I got hit with paperwork, required training, waiting periods, and the local gun registry. Of course everyone wants to know why I need it and if I want a CCW here thats going to take even longer.
My Grandfather owned several revolvers and rifles in his day. He openly bought and traded with his friends, and it was no ones business but his own.
He was alive at a time when it would be possible to buy brand new full-auto weapons off the shelf.

Now few people have a gun and we have record gun violence in the VI. These laws should have been easy to overturn, but their safely in place for the forseeable future and its never even been made a campaign issue.

Does the NRA need help?
I would say yes.

NRA has membership and money, but it dosnt seem to be nearly as agressive as the ACLU has been. Theres something odd when a politician fears a lawyer more than a firearm...
I think that means we've been stocking up on the wrong kind of firepower.:banghead:

beerslurpy
February 5, 2006, 09:34 PM
whether- a conditional statement

weather- something that is forecast on the news

Weatherby- a rifle manufacturerer

longhorngunman
February 5, 2006, 10:10 PM
The ACLU at it's core is a Communist organization, period. The sooner this group is destroyed the better.

TequilaMockingbird
February 5, 2006, 10:38 PM
I just knew that someone would reflexively denounce the ACLU as communist. And so here is the cartoon (http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1261/591/1600/gunsandaclu.0.png) that is on point. :neener:

Maxwell
February 5, 2006, 10:43 PM
The ACLU at it's core is a Communist organization, period. The sooner this group is destroyed the better.

That may be, but Im not interested in supporting their cause so much as weatherby the right circumstances they would come to support mine.

There are worse things than communists in this world.

tulsamal
February 5, 2006, 11:49 PM
The ACLU is like the Sierra Club or any other organization. They are reflecting the views of their members. Considering how effective they often are in the courts, I've thought before that "taking over the ACLU" would be a very interesting goal for gun owners. If several million gun owners joined the ACLU and voted for their leaders based on the RKBA, it could be a VERY crucial move. I DO see them as an organization that SHOULD recognize the rights of gun owners as being a crucial counterbalance to an overreaching national government.

They just need a bunch of new members to help them down that road!

Gregg

Igloodude
February 6, 2006, 11:39 AM
maxwell I'm surprised you think we need the aclu's help that badly. Its an organization with 500,000+ members, the NRA has 4.3 million. Thats actually what troubles me about the NRA, they seem like alot of bark but more concerned about getting people to renew with the promise of crappy merchandise than legal issues.

And as tulsamal notes, if even one out of every eight NRA members joined the ACLU, it seems certain that they'd stop ignoring RKBA and proactively defend the 2nd alongside the 1st, 4th, and 5th. And then, of course, the members that don't like the 2nd would go off and make their own organization, leaving the ACLU with probably 600,000 members. :D

roscoe
February 6, 2006, 11:46 AM
The ACLU at it's core is a Communist organization, period. The sooner this group is destroyed the better.
Yeah, go to their website - they constantly argue about Trotsky and the .223 for CQB in their forums.

I love it when people use insults without knowing what the words actually mean - it's like 7th grade all over again.

A smart person supports the NRA and ACLU and lets them both know it.

k_dawg
February 6, 2006, 12:42 PM
The ACLU's "support of the 2nd amendment" is as assinine if they only supported "white men owning land" have the right to free speech/assembly/religion and the right to vote.

Thefabulousfink
February 6, 2006, 12:55 PM
The ACLU actively takes the position that the 2nd Amendment is a collective right that pertains only to state militias. In so doing, they declare themselves our opponents.

That's a problem that goes way beyond merely dividing up the workload.

True, it has allways spoken to their hypocracy (sp?) that the ACLU would be such a strong supporter of individual rights over the authority of the Government except on the issue of gun control. Mabey they thought that if minorities had guns they could stand up for their own rights.:rolleyes:

It is nice to see that some members of the ACLU are waking up to the rights of ALL Americans, not just minorities and NAMBLA members.;)

Thefabulousfink
February 6, 2006, 12:59 PM
And I do realize that members of the ACLU might support the 2A, but their organization is decidely quiet when gun rights issues are going to court. If you don't say anything on an issue, then you don't support that issue do you.

Liking an issuse is one thing, but supporting it implies that you are working to further its cause.

Carl N. Brown
February 6, 2006, 01:02 PM
The first thing a communist government would do is truck
all ACLU and NRA activists off to the gulag.

I don't always agree with ACLU (the Nazis had no business
marching thru Skokie and NAMBLA has no right to aid and
abet breaking the law on child rape) but they are not
communist just because they defend the first amendment
rights of communists, and nazis, and everyone in between.

Maxwell
February 6, 2006, 01:14 PM
that the ACLU would be such a strong supporter of individual rights over the authority of the Government except on the issue of gun control.

Well, from what I know about the ACLU's history ((c)Wikipedia) They supposedly booted out communist ideals to focus on civil rights, since the two agendas dont exactly mesh.

Its possible they are feeling out a new way to expand. Theres no shortage of "gun crimes" where people are wrongfully jailed or prevented from owning firearms. Theres no shortage of money here either, from lawsuits or memberships. The second amendment is about as clear as it gets. one just needs a dictionary and a few history books for a good argument.

That would probly be a good poll question.
If the aclu declared itself pro-gun, would you join?

ElTacoGrande
February 6, 2006, 03:33 PM
That would probly be a good poll question.
If the aclu declared itself pro-gun, would you join?

Yes.

They are effective. They have great lawyers and they fight hard cases. The NRA's lawyers (in my subjective opinion) seem more focused on defending the industry than they are on defending our rights. Do you think that the NRA would send its legal team in to defend someone who was posessing an unregistered MG? I don't think they would, but that is sort of like the ACLU sending in lawyers to defend the most extreme expressions of free speech, etc.

longhorngunman
February 6, 2006, 05:12 PM
The ACLU will help a gun owner, if that gun owner also likes to sodomize little children. This group is easily the most despicable organization in America if you are a traditionalist. If you are the immoral type and believe that "anything" goes than yeah, the ACLU is probably right up your ally. I hope the folks check out www.alliancedefensefund.org , this is a good group that is having great success fighting the ACLU in the courts.

Gordon Fink
February 6, 2006, 05:44 PM
Thatís funny. I thought the NRA was the most despicable organization in America.

~G. Fink :rolleyes:

Igloodude
February 6, 2006, 05:48 PM
The ACLU will help a gun owner, if that gun owner also likes to sodomize little children. This group is easily the most despicable organization in America if you are a traditionalist. If you are the immoral type and believe that "anything" goes than yeah, the ACLU is probably right up your ally. I hope the folks check out www.alliancedefensefund.org , this is a good group that is having great success fighting the ACLU in the courts.

That can't be right, the Alliance Defense Fund's website doesn't even mention the Second Amendment, that I can see. :eek:

And seeing how I disagree with most of their actual positions, and your statement that they're fighting the ACLU, you've finally convinced me that the ACLU deserves my membership money.

JJpdxpinkpistols
February 6, 2006, 06:40 PM
And seeing how I disagree with most of their actual positions, and your statement that they're fighting the ACLU, you've finally convinced me that the ACLU deserves my membership money.

snort.

Thanks, longhorngunman!

Based upon that website, the ACLU just got 4 adults from my household, ALL gun owners.

longhorngunman
February 6, 2006, 07:37 PM
That's terrific! It's your money, do whatever the hell you want to do with it. The ADL appeals to me on issues besides gun rights.

TequilaMockingbird
February 6, 2006, 07:56 PM
Here's a liberal columnist who is a tad upset by the ACLU's support for the Texas travelling-gun law.

Roddy Stinson: State's new gun-toting law has surprise backer: ACLU (http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA020506.03A.Stinson.24665cb.html)

Use the feedback information below to call or e-mail me your take on Texas' new gun-toting law.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
To contact Roddy Stinson, call (210) 250-3155 or e-mail rstinson@express-news.net.

Remember, be polite.

Soybomb
February 6, 2006, 08:18 PM
The ACLU will help a gun owner, if that gun owner also likes to sodomize little children. This group is easily the most despicable organization in America if you are a traditionalist. If you are the immoral type and believe that "anything" goes than yeah, the ACLU is probably right up your ally. I hope the folks check out www.alliancedefensefund.org , this is a good group that is having great success fighting the ACLU in the courts.
I checked out a few pages and decided I couldn't help but comment on say this one http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/issues/TraditionalFamily/Pornography.aspx

We all have our own opinions of what is moral, just, or correct, plus what is constitutionally guararanteed freedom. I think its hardest to stand up for someones rights when they're doing something you don't agree with. Sometimes thats a nazi protest when you're not a nazi, sometimes its gun ownership when you don't like guns, sometimes its someones right to view or produce pronography when you find it is against your ethics/morals/religion/whatever. While I find their attitude on the matter condescending (how nice, they want to protect people from themselves) it just really seems to me they're pushing a moral or religious agenda, not constitutional rights. Ymmv and all that.

patentmike
February 7, 2006, 12:55 AM
So this is "neutral" on gun control?

"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." [emphasis added]

Take a good look at that "no principled way" argument. If they applied it to every issue, they'd be out of business, as in: "Unless the Constitution protects the individual's right to marry underage sheep, there is no way to oppose reasonable restrictions on marriage."

Any organization that thinks Kennedy is right 86% is highly suspect.

http://action.aclu.org/site/VoteCenter?page=congScorecard&congress=108&location=S&lcmd=prev&lcmd_cf=

I'll stick with the NRA and ACLJ http://www.aclj.org even though the ACLU would oppose (i.e. not "tolerate") my appointment to public office for holding such outlandish views.

beerslurpy
February 7, 2006, 01:10 AM
To contact Roddy Stinson, call (210) 250-3155 or e-mail rstinson@express-news.net.

Remember, be polite.

I figured this was better than appealing to authority by quoting jefferson or cesare beccorra, who is probably a tad obscure these days.

The right to self defense is one of the most fundamental rights any human being has. Disarming otherwise law-abiding people infringes upon that right. On the other hand, you may worry "what if criminals begin to conceal weapons on their bodies whilst traveling?" However, remember that criminals already conceal weapons on their person in violation of the law, usually while commiting crimes that are far more serious than misdemeanor concealed weapon possession.

Any person can conceal a small weapon like a handgun on their body. The real reason concealed carry laws are needed is because after defending oneself, the law-abiding citizen waits around for the cops to arrive, so he can justify his actions. The criminal, thinking himself clever, will use his weapon and then attempt to flee the scene. For the law-abiding citizen, the legality of the weapon is important because he only intends to use it in socially appropriate ways. For the criminal, the legality of the weapon is unimportant because he considers himself above the law so long as he can escape capture.

Remember that the laws dont control the criminal, they control the law-abiding. When the laws make things easy for the criminal and hard for the law-abiding, they are bad laws. When they make things easy and simple for the law-abiding and dangerous for the criminal, they are better laws.

Make sense?

-jim

Igloodude
February 7, 2006, 07:45 AM
I have never agreed with our 1st amendment rights granting groups such as the Nazi's or KKK the right to espouse hatred against other citizens based solely on color or creed. If you can't espouse the violent overthrow of our nation, then why is it right to verbally promote the genocide of a race? Who are we kidding... isn't the "final solution" the ultimate goal of these hate groups? And you think that's just fine and dandy, and protected under free speech??

I envy you, in a way. You at least understand the mindset of the anti-gun folks that understand the 2nd amendment, but don't think it is relevant any more. In fact, you are probably closer to the average ACLU member in that way than I am, but you'd ignore the 1st where they ignore the 2nd.

JN01
February 7, 2006, 06:37 PM
The ACLU is interested in promoting a extreme left agenda and will never step up to defend anyone or anything that stands in the way of that agenda. Perhaps some individual members may deviate from that, but as an organization they will never have a policy to:

Defend 2nd Amendment or self-defense rights;

Defend free speech rights of abortion protesters, fight against leftist college speech codes; (You could argue that by defending the war protester, they are defending everyones 1st Amendment rights, but that is an incidental result of defending their views. Also they can defend crack-pots like skinheads because nobody takes them seriously anyway. Mainstream views they don't agree with they will never directly defend)

Represent people screwed by affirmative action quotas;

Stand for parental rights to be notified prior to their children going through certain elective surgical procedures (abortion) or any matter involving sexual activity.

Suggesting that right-wing and/or religious people try to force their morals on others but left-wing wackos like the ACLU don't is laughable. The difference is that the ACLU has been much more effective by using the courts to do so.

TequilaMockingbird
February 7, 2006, 07:38 PM
Iowa Civil Liberties Union Defends Right of Students to Wear Anti-Abortion T-Shirts (4/29/2005) (http://www.aclu.org//studentsrights/expression/12852prs20050429.html)

ACLU defends students against PC speech codes (http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12808pub19941231.html)

ElTacoGrande
February 7, 2006, 09:03 PM
Iowa Civil Liberties Union Defends Right of Students to Wear Anti-Abortion T-Shirts (4/29/2005) (http://www.aclu.org//studentsrights/expression/12852prs20050429.html)

ACLU defends students against PC speech codes (http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12808pub19941231.html)

Good links, Senor. That is what the ACLU is all about. One effect of that is that everyone knows, "if I'm being deprived of my 1st amend rights, there's somenoe I can call." They work for people all over the spectrum, including the fringes and everyone in between.

They are mainly focused on the 1st amend and some criminal process things. If they would take up the 2nd with the same ferocity that they apply to the 1st, this discussion forum would be a boring place because there wouldn't be anything to complain about.

I'm enthusiastic about that quote from the Texas ACLU. Maybe I'll join here in CA and see if I can influence it from the outside.

I read a report written by Massad Ayoub about a big national gun rights conf. last year where the ACLU sent a rep. I think that the recent vote in Brazil shows that the the NRA (et al) have achieved an amazing thing: people around the world have woken up to the idea that gun ownership is a right.

No coincidence, it's an albatross around the neck of the Dems who continue to bite it on national elections as long as they support gun control.

AZRickD
February 7, 2006, 11:13 PM
I sent this over to Alan Korwin of http://www.gunlaws.com who is a writer and ACLU member :)

He got into contact with some Texas friends:

Alice,
Did the ACLU help pass the car-carry "traveler" law?

Alan.
---------------------------------
--Alice responds--

Now your subject line says "helps" write pro-carry law and that's absolutely not true. However, the Texas ACLU testified for SB 501 during the 2003 session, to stop city and county government from posting PC 30.06 signs (criminal trespass by a CHL) and their testimony was very powerful and persuasive.

Did they work the bill? No... the NRA lobbyist and I worked the bill. They simply gave supportive testimony on HB 823 as they did during the previous session on SB 501.

And why do you ask?


--Alan responds--

Alice,

Some AZ activists looking at ACLU locally were wondering about rumored TX ACLU activity, I offered to ask around. I believe your description above helps clarify things. Thanks.

NineseveN
February 8, 2006, 12:36 AM
Good to see the ACLU doing something on the 2A, but I suspect that if they made this a trend, they'd lose a lot of their funding, most of which certainly comes from liberal sources, which is the tail that wags their dog on the 2A. The Conservatives have spent so much time against them that they would undoubtedly refrain from pitching in to pick up the funding slack. I wish it weren't so as the ACLU knows how to get things done.

TequilaMockingbird
February 8, 2006, 12:53 PM
I don't need the ACLU to rush into battle to start defending the 2nd Amendment. I'd be happy just to see them embrace the view of Professor of Constitutional Law Lawrence Tribe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Tribe), who notes, "The people's 'right' to be armed cannot be trumped by the [Second] Amendment's preamble." Having examined the historical evidence for himself, Tribe now reluctantly admits the Amendment guarantees "a right (admittedly of uncertain scope) on the part of individuals to possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes."

And then there's Professor of Law at Yale University, Akhil Reed Amar (http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/gun_control_lies.htm), whose politics can fairly be described as a bit leftish.

I think over the past few decades, we've been winning the argument, and it's having an effect on liberals.

Check out the discussion of gun rights at TalkLeft (http://www.talkleft.com/new_archives/009068.html).

Can you imagine if the ACLU adjusted it's take on the Second Amendment to be more in line with Tribe and Reed? That would be such a coup!

JN01
February 8, 2006, 05:41 PM
Re-reading my earlier post, I overgeneralized when I said the ACLU will "never" defend certain things. I will concede that on occasion they will step up for a right-winger (such as Limbaugh and his medical records). I still stand by the main thrust of my contention, however, that they have a left wing agenda and work, for the most part, to further that agenda.

Theoretically, their policy may be to support all free speech, but in practice it seems to be a rarity for them to litigate on behalf of those who aren't of a left wing political persuasion. They claim college speech codes are wrong, but how many schools have they sued for having such a thing? They will try to turn the law and common sense on their heads to prevent evidence seized from some scumbag from being used against him, but did they join the NRA and SAF against the illegal seizure of citizens property in New Orleans? When prosecutors have tried to use the RICO statutes to go after abortion protesters, did the ACLU complain about extreme tactics being used? When the Clintons unlawfully ended up in possession of hundreds of FBI files on Republicans, where was the outcry from the ACLU?

Unless they start putting their money where there mouth is, their claim that they defend everyone's civil rights equally is just empty rhetoric to soften their image, no different than John Kerry's supposed support of the 2nd Amendment during his presidential campaign

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