Aclu


PDA






steverjo
October 29, 2007, 12:26 PM
Has anyone contacted the ACLU to get their support in the defense of the second ammmendment? After all, they are they are supposed to defend the individual's guaranteed rights against big government, artn't they?

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!
Green Lantern
October 29, 2007, 12:28 PM
I have....I forget if they ignored me, or gave me a form letter with the whole "COLLECTIVE" right runaround....

Glock Glockler
October 29, 2007, 12:41 PM
I really think we ought to form our own version of the ACLU that recognizes the whole BoR. Why try to convert them if we can simply walk around them and start attracting serious membership?

Perhaps Tejon can weigh in on this one.

Neo-Luddite
October 29, 2007, 12:50 PM
http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html


There are folks here at THR that have 'dual citizenship' and carry NRA and ACLU cards--nothing wrong with that.

Read the above--the ACLU isn't interested in the 2nd. I wouldn't waste your time trying to convince them otherwise.

Thain
October 29, 2007, 01:02 PM
The ACLU is focused on its speciality, the NRA is focused on its speciality, and as nice as it would be to have one stop shopping, I have no problems with either group.

Do I like everything the ACLU does? Nope.
Do I like everything the NRA does? Nope.

Do I like that either organization steps up to the plate to defend what I beleive in, and agree with 90% (or more) of the time? Heck yes.

In the grand bloody melee that is American politics, I'm going to back the guy who mostly agrees with me (ACLU, NRA, GOP) rather than concede the fight to the guy who is fundamentally oppossed to everything I stand for. (VPC, MMM, KKK, Democratic Party...)

El Tejon
October 29, 2007, 01:08 PM
Defend the rights of individuals? Ummm, no, the ACLU exists to further the cause of socialism by destroying the USA via the Bill of Rights as a battering ram against society. Hence the lack of interest in and outright hostility to the Second Amendment.

The ICLU here is taking Indiana's voter ID law to the United States Supreme Court. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/25/AR2007092500680.html

When I asked Mr. Falk whether the ICLU will join me in attacking the identification requirements for the purchase of firearms, I received stammering and obfruscation. Some animals are more equal than others obviously.

The Commandments and Principles of the ACLU=>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Commandments

dvanblaricom
October 29, 2007, 01:16 PM
I have learned over the past few years if I am confused on an issue to take a look at where the aclu stands and do the opposite.

cracked butt
October 29, 2007, 01:18 PM
ACLU isn't interested in actual 'rights,' they are interested in supporting leftist causes.

Jorg Nysgerrig
October 29, 2007, 01:21 PM
Didn't you guys get this out of your systems in the last "Hey, let's get the ACLU to support gun rights!" vs. "THE ACLU ARE GODLESS COMMIES! WOLVERINES!" thread we had just last week (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=310956)?

El Tejon
October 29, 2007, 01:24 PM
Wolverines!:D

Megistopoda
October 29, 2007, 02:53 PM
The ACLU's official stated position is that they do not support 2A causes because, they hold, that the 2A confers a "collective right" only.

Should the SCOTUS take the Heller case, and should they definitavely rule that yes, the second protects individuals just like we've known all along....

....well, then the ACLU will have to do some soul-searching, and will show it's true colors on this issue.


To read from ACLU's site regarding the 2A, follow this link:
http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html

As I read that page, I kept glancing upward to ensure that I had not been redirected to the Brady campaign's site...

It will be a pleasure to watch them revise their policy, or, to see what kind of BS they come up with to continue ignoring 2A rights...

El Tejon
October 29, 2007, 02:56 PM
The ACLU will not change in the face of a strong pro-individual SCOTUS ruling. The SCOTUS and BoR means absolutely nothing to them.

It is not about the Constitution; it is about their agenda.

Megistopoda
October 29, 2007, 02:59 PM
Well Tejon, you might be right. If so, then they will have to shuck, and jive, and fabricate a whole litany of excuses (aka Horse-Cookies). In that event, they will take increased pressure from the educated public (like us), and thus stand to loose some of their influence.

Then again, I am one of the optimists who sees the tide turning somewhat in the US...

Ed Ames
October 29, 2007, 03:13 PM
The ACLU has worked on behalf of gun owners many times.

They got their real start at a time when the prevailing unacademic understanding of 2A was "collective". As more lawyers are educated in the curent "individual" 2A interpretation they will change. However, even without changing they have been on the side of many things gun owners do, or should, hold dear. Due process, impartial justice, equal protection, free speech -- the list goes on.

buzz_knox
October 29, 2007, 03:25 PM
They got their real start at a time when the prevailing unacademic understanding of 2A was "collective". As more lawyers are educated in the curent "individual" 2A interpretation they will change. However, even without changing they have been on the side of many things gun owners do, or should, hold dear. Due process, impartial justice, equal protection, free speech -- the list goes on.

The collective interpretation has been refuted by the weight of scholarly opinion for decades. The ACLU doesn't recognize this fact, nor even consider it open for discussion. It isn't likely to change, no matter what happens.

As for the ACLU helping gun owners, when? Where was the ACLU when confiscations were taking place in New Orleans (or is the 5th Amendment meaningless as well to them?). Maybe it was too busy taking New Orleans residents before the UN. Freedom of speech? Interesting, since the ACLU helps regulate speech by threatening lawsuits unless the speech suits it. The ACLU's support of the UNC mandate that students learn about the Koran or justify their refusal to do so is a wonderful example of the ACLU's stance on "freedom" of speech and "freedom" from religion.

Admittedly, the ACLU does some good. Of course, Mussolini made the trains run on time.

Green Lantern
October 29, 2007, 08:59 PM
The ACLU is focused on its speciality

Does that not make them hypocrites, though?

Remember when they had that cute little "Night Before Christmas" parody that specifically mentioned the 2A?

If anyone wishes to educate me of WHEN the ACLU has defended the 2A, I'm always willing to learn something new.

Until then, I'd be much happier to join them if they were UP-FRONT about their goals. Start calling themselves the A.C.L.E.S.A.U (American Civil Liberties, Excluding the Second Amendment, Union)!

:D

Ed Ames
October 29, 2007, 09:07 PM
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119544.html

revjen45
October 29, 2007, 09:08 PM
Wolverines!! Avenge me!!:fire:

Thain
October 29, 2007, 09:18 PM
The ACLU Defends Gun Rights
Since I live in Texas, I'm embarrassed to say I was not aware of this story until I saw it in yesterday's New York Times: The ACLU of Texas has joined with the Texas State Rifle Association and the NRA to fight local prosecutors who are defying a law aimed at protecting law-abiding Texans from being arrested for having guns in their cars. State law has long exempted people who have guns in their vehicles while "traveling" from being prosecuted for unlawful carrying of a weapon (UCW), an offense punishable by up to a year in jail. But the definition of "traveling" was fuzzy, leaving gun owners vulnerable to arrest, prosecution, and conviction, depending on how police officers, prosecutors, and judges decided to read and apply the law. In 2005, at the urging of the gun groups and the state ACLU, the legislature passed a law that creates a presumption of "traveling" for any motorist in a private vehicle who is not legally disqualified from owning a gun, does not belong to "a criminal street gang," is not engaged in criminal activity (beyond minor traffic infractions), and is not carrying the gun in plain view. But in a report issued last February, the ACLU of Texas, the Texas State Rifle Association, and the Texas Criminal Justice Association showed that many district and county attorneys are instructing police to carry on as before, arresting motorists for UCW at their discretion and letting prosecutors and judges sort things out.

Given its mission, the ACLU certainly should be fighting such lawless harassment of innocent people. But it is notable that the gun angle did not prevent the Texas chapter from getting involved, despite the national organization's position that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms. Since it does not believe the Second Amendment imposes any limits on the government's authority to restrict possession of guns, the national ACLU has never challenged gun control laws. By contrast, the ACLU of Texas supported statutory changes aimed at allowing law-abiding Texans to keep guns in their cars, whether for self-defense or while on the way to and from the shooting range, and now it is monitoring enforcement of the changes and recommending further revisions to ensure that the legislature's intent is implemented.

Scott Henson, who testified in favor of the "traveling" law on behalf of the ACLU, has background over at Grits for Breakfast here, here, and here.


Hey, look at that...

But yeah, the majority of the ACLU is of the "collective rights" mindset... But so what? They aren't a "gun rights" nor are they a "gun control" group. I do agree with most of their stances on freedom of speech, freedom of press, et cetera.

To me, its kind of like getting mad at the AARP for not doing enough for teenagers...

Green Lantern
October 29, 2007, 09:46 PM
Well, apparently the state ACLU branches have some autonomy over the "main" one...?

To me, its kind of like getting mad at the AARP for not doing enough for teenagers...

Again...ACLU *claims* to defend *all* Constitutional rights. I don't like hypocrites, the actions of a "rogue" state branch notwithstanding. If ACLU really did protect ALL of our Constitutional rights, then stories like this would be the norm, not a rarity.

Maybe someone should sue the ACLU for "false advertising" and force them to change their name to A.C.L.E.S.A.U (American Civil Liberties, Excluding the Second Amendment, Union)!

Kim
October 30, 2007, 12:20 AM
I can not support the ACLU. They may be right on somethings but are wrong on many. Plus I watched their President and others of their group snicker YES I MEAN SNICKER about the 2nd amendment on C-span. They were making fun of those who support the individual 2nd amendment right. Which is ME. So they can go you know where.:fire:

Colonel
October 30, 2007, 09:07 AM
http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html

I like how in one breath, they say:

"We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states [BLAH BLAH BLAH] ..."

and then in the very next breath, they say:

"The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control."

Doesn't sound very "neutral" to me! IIRC, the whole "collective rights" revision of history is a fraud that was unheard-of before the middle of the 20th century.

By the way, since when do states have "rights"? I thought they only had enumerated powers!

Igloodude
October 30, 2007, 10:21 AM
The ACLU and the NRA pursue fundamentally different strategies in support of their aims: The ACLU relies on the judicial system whereas the NRA leans on the executive and (mostly) the legislative branches, though of course there are exceptions for both of them (the ACLU does lobby elected officials, and the NRA does pursue lawsuits). Their strategies reflect reality: courts have in the last few decades taken the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments very seriously, moreso than general public opinion would reflect (and mostly, they use the cases where public opinion isn't on their side anyway), but most federal circuit courts have effectively ruled for a collective 2A argument, so the NRA has had little chance of winning fights there but can instead rely on a large number of motivated single-issue voters to sway legislators in ways the ACLU can only dream about.

It should be very interesting to see what (if anything) a pro-individual 2A SCOTUS ruling on Heller will do to the ACLU's official viewpoint, and whether the NRA can or will learn from the ACLU's experience in extending the war to the judiciary branch.

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!