Maybe? No way?


PDA






Chad
April 18, 2007, 10:36 AM
I read this article earlier...
The pat-down searches, which are NFL policy at stadiums nationwide, were halted for Buccaneers games after high school civics teacher and season-ticket holder Gordon Johnston challenged them as unconstitutional. U.S. District Judge James D. Whittemore last July upheld a state court ruling that the pat-downs violate the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

"It's like a slippery slope," Johnston said after Tuesday's hearing. "If I lose these rights, going to the games, then I'll lose other rights."

The American Civil Liberties Union, which filed a 2005 lawsuit on Johnston's behalf, said the case has broad implications for mass searches of people not suspected of unlawful activity.

"This is about a person's fundamental constitutional right to be free from unwanted physical searches," said Rebecca Steele, director of the ACLU's West Central Florida office.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FL_BUCCANEERS_SECURITY_FLOL-?SITE=FLTAL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
...and it got me to wondering.

I know there's no love lost between the RKBA supporters and the ACLU, but how hard would it really be to get ACLU support for what is ultimately a constitutional issue?

Possible? Unlikely? No ******* way?

If you enjoyed reading about "Maybe? No way?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
JWarren
April 18, 2007, 10:42 AM
I know there's no love lost between the RKBA supporters and the ACLU, but how hard would it really be to get ACLU support for what is ultimately a constitutional issue?


I understand what the ACLU is trying to do. However, I find them to be hypocritical.

They have chosen to align themselves with the liberals. And doing so, they have adopted the liberal agenda and incorporated it into their application of the Bill of Rights.

If you read their web site, the state that they are "neutral" on the 2nd Amendment. What??? HOW can a group that claims that they are advocates for RIGHTS and specifically the Bill of Rights pick and choose WHICH rights they will support.

They have allowed thier political allies to corrupt thier interpretation of OUR rights.


They are just one more group that has decided to make it up as they go.


John

LubeckTech
April 18, 2007, 11:18 AM
Think about it - if you are walking down a street and a cop stops you wanting to search you with out probable cause that is one thing BUT entering a sporting event or concert is different. The latter is a voulntary thing - the promoter is telling you a condition of entering is submitting to a pat down search and if you don't agree don't enter. I don't agree with the search thing but it is a part of a voluntary contract between you and the promoter and not a constitutional issue. One of the many problems with the ACLU is it tries to misapply the constitution in an effort to "correct" things it thinks unfair.

Chad
April 18, 2007, 11:47 AM
If you read their web site, the state that they are "neutral" on the 2nd Amendment. What??? HOW can a group that claims that they are advocates for RIGHTS and specifically the Bill of Rights pick and choose WHICH rights they will support.
That's what got me thinking.

I'm not concerned about the 4th amendment issue at the moment.

What I'm wondering is it worth the effort to try to turn around the ACLU...to try and get them to realize that they can't be 'neutral' about the 2nd amendment.

Or are they so far gone that it's a waste of time and effort?

answerguy
April 18, 2007, 11:48 AM
The way I see it the ACLU will be against personal searches if it's for drugs. But if it's for weapons they will be all for it.

Car Knocker
April 18, 2007, 11:51 AM
LubeckTech,

Ah, but in this case, it's the government that owns the stadium. Cops work for the .gov, as do the stadium security guards. THAT'S the Constitutional link.

Car Knocker
April 18, 2007, 12:02 PM
answerguy,

The ACLU filed suit in the NYC subway weapons searches and, possibly, in the Boston subway searches.

Zundfolge
April 18, 2007, 12:06 PM
The way I see it the ACLU will be against personal searches if it's for drugs. But if it's for weapons they will be all for it.
And yet the VERY STORY that started this thread proves you wrong. They aren't searching people entering NFL games for drugs, these searches are for weapons, suicide bomber vests (and probably "outside food").

There's a lot of misinformation about the ACLU among RKBA folk. And a lot of ACLU bashing in these forums (I should know, I've done plenty of it myself).

The ACLU's "official" position on the 2A is not to take a position. In general they haven't done anything FOR RKBA, but they've also done little against it.


The ACLU is a club, and a club that will admit anyone that plunks down at least $20 (https://secure.aclu.org/site/Donation?ACTION=SHOW_DONATION_OPTIONS&CAMPAIGN_ID=1061&s_src=UNW070001C00&s_subsrc=donationpage) and you too could be a "Card Carrying Member of the ACLU™"

There are many ACLU members that are pro-2A. The problem is that the leftist media only focuses on the things the ACLU does that the left likes.



No, they aren't a perfect organization (I wish they'd take half as strong a position on the 2A that they take on the 1st 4th and 5th). But they do some good ... and could do more good if more RKBA folk (and other non-left libertarian types) joined and pushed them in the right direction.

My biggest gripe with the ACLU is their tendency to interpret the 1st Amendment to mean freedom from religion, but thats only one issue.

At the very least one can look at the ACLU as "...even a broken clock is right twice a day."

If you enjoyed reading about "Maybe? No way?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!