1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

ACLU defends gun owner's rights...

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Tinpig, Oct 13, 2012.

  1. Tinpig

    Tinpig Well-Known Member

    A year ago last September, Cranston, RI police confiscated lawfully owned firearms and other weapons from Robert Machado, a Vietnam veteran, whom they mistakenly "believed" to be suicidal. Despite letters from his psychiatrist saying that he posed no danger to himself or others, the police refused to return his property.

    In June, the Rhode Island ACLU filed suit against the PD for the return of Mr. Machado's firearms, compensation for damage, and legal fees, claiming the department "violated his right to due process and his right to keep and bear arms by retaining his property without just cause."

    Yesterday the case was settled with the CPD agreeing to all conditions.


  2. mljdeckard

    mljdeckard Well-Known Member


    Note that it is the state chapter of the ACLU, not the national. You still have to cut off your second finger to work for them.
  3. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    The various state ACLUs over the years have defended individuals who have had their 2nd amendment rights violated with good success. The position of the national organization still has not shifted, but as more and more state ACLUs defend the 2A rights of individuals the national ACLU will shift to acknowledging the reality of an individual right 2nd amendment.
  4. Sky

    Sky Well-Known Member

    Thanks for posting
  5. r1derbike

    r1derbike Well-Known Member

    Wow! an eye-opener. I've been firmly against a lot of ACLU intervention, but it appears this was sound judgement, on their part. Kudos for their efforts.
  6. Steel Horse Rider

    Steel Horse Rider Well-Known Member

    I believe their chief motivation is monetary rather than protecting the 2nd Amendment as they can bill the government for their costs for every challenge they win.
  7. 9mmepiphany

    9mmepiphany Moderator

    At least at the state level, the ACLU...yes, even on the West Coast...is staffed by folks who really believe in their cause. That is insuring that a person's rights are respected and pursuing legal courses of action when needed...they really are apolitical.

    They don't have to support the 2nd Adm, their concern is that it was violated...and kudos for doing the right thing
  8. bushmaster1313

    bushmaster1313 Well-Known Member

    Isn't it enough that it is in the Bill of Rights and affirmed by the Supreme Court.

    What is the National ACLU reason for not acknowledging the RTKBA after Heller and McDonald?
  9. mljdeckard

    mljdeckard Well-Known Member

    Like I say.....missing their second fingers.
  10. bthest86

    bthest86 Well-Known Member

    Basically their excuse is that they disagree with those rulings so they're going to pretend that they don't exist and continue to use their own interpretation of the 2A (which I believe is more inline with Miller v US).
  11. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    The ACLU is not a monolithic organization. The State ACLUs can and do take positions that run counter to the national ACLU and have defended the 2nd Amendment rights of individuals.

    The Louisiana, Florida, Texas, Nevada and now Rhode Island state ACLUs have all defended individuals who's 2A rights have been violated.
  12. Hugo

    Hugo Well-Known Member

    Sounds like the state ACLU organizations need to give the national ACLU a wake up call. Namely "stop this anti-gun rights crap" and protect ALL civil liberties..
  13. Tinpig

    Tinpig Well-Known Member

    No reason why a successful plaintiff's legal fees shouldn't be reimbursed by the defendant. Having the PD's actions cost the city money is another way of exposing and bringing pressure to bear on their illegal actions.

    The article states that legal fees awarded were $2000. I doubt that even covered expenses.

  14. OilyPablo

    OilyPablo Well-Known Member

    Sad that even happened in the first place.

    Two things:
    Why anyone would anyone agree to this? The whole state group would love to "evaluate" us all. Glad he was found to be "OK".

    And the part that really bugs me:

    Rarely agree with the ACLU, but he nailed it. What has gone so wrong with our police? :cuss::cuss::cuss:
  15. Flynt

    Flynt Well-Known Member

    I have been a long-time supporter of the ACLU in theory -- in principle -- but over the last few years I have seriously questioned their judgment in specific cases. Having said that, I was proud of them when the state affiliate sued on behalf of some Tarrant County (TX) Community College students who wanted to protest the school's ban on licensed concealed handguns. The students wanted to wear empty holsters for a day as a silent protest. The school said no, it'd be disruptive, and the ACLU sued as a violation of First Amendment rights. They won.
  16. 230RN

    230RN Marines on Mt. Curibacci

    Seems to be quite regional. I remember watching a PBS show about ten years ago with an ACLU lawyer defending a really controversial case (unrelated to firearms) in one of the southeastern states. He was shown open-carrying a revolver around town and in his office for his own protection. Right there on a PBS show. I was stunned, myself, no kidding.

    So far as I can tell, their offical position on 2A is still:

    But let's remember that the national headquarters is in New York City, whose population has been so thoroughly immersed and marinated in anti-gun propaganda that you would be hard-pressed to find people there who are not anti-firearms for ordinary citizens. (Yes, some exist, but not many.)

    And they need membership funds from the locals, so it's not surprising to me that the National Official Policy is contrary to logic and law.

    Just like the surrounding population.

    Terry, 230RN
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2012
  17. ExTank

    ExTank Well-Known Member

    Except that a close reading of Miller shows that there was no evidence before the court (because Miller was most likely already dead, or his lawyer wasn't paid to show up and present an oral argument) to show that a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches had any reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well regulated militia.

    The Justices go on to lay out the historic definition of a militia (ordinary citizens, with their own, privately owned weaponry), and say that thos eprivately held arms must have some relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Exactly what that relationship is, is not defined, but they did give a hint when they suggested that they bear some relationshhip to ordinary military equipment in use at the time.

    It took two subsequent Circuit Court cases (U.S. v Tot, Cases vs. US, IIRC, which both cited Miller) to invent legal "taste-tests" that the owner of firearm can only possess for purposes of participating in militia activities.

    I then took some anti-gun lawyers and Justices to create, out of thin air, the Collective Right interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

    But a close reading of Miller shows exactly the opposite; IMO, a close reading (reading just what the Justices wrote) of Miller invalidates the Assault Weapons Ban! :cuss: Since many members of the armed forces are issued handguns as sidearms, handgun bans go out the window, as well. And military firearms also typically have high-capacity magazines, so out goes the Hi-Cap Mag bans, too.

    Hell, a close reading of Miller might just invalidate (or just severely curtail) the NFA.

    In my Not-A-Lawyer opinion, Miller was a good ruling; it ruled only on the facts before the Court, but realizing it was hearing a one-sided argument, they left an "out" for subsequent rulings to reaffirm the individual right to K&B.
  18. Derek Zeanah

    Derek Zeanah System Administrator Staff Member

    Expect change.

    At the SHOT show this year I got a call from one the directors of the ACLU national office and we discussed their stance on the 2nd. It's....evolving. Historically they've ignored the 2nd amendment, but they're warming up to it more and more.

    Or at least so I was told. Might have been because the the size of my donation though. (Don't feel bad - I gave the NRA an identical amount.)
  19. k_dawg

    k_dawg Well-Known Member

    The national ACLU official position is akin to souther slave owners after the 13/14/15th amendments.

    "well shoot, we disagree with the constitution, so we still gonna keep us some slaves. "

    It's repugnant in all aspects and shows that the ACLU, at least at the national level, does not care about _rights_. But rather, pushing their own agenda.
  20. SaxonPig

    SaxonPig Well-Known Member

    In the DC headquarters of the ACLU the Bill of Rights is posted on the wall. The Second Amendment is missing.

Share This Page