publius
Member
LOL! Nobody say a thing. This policy will grow funnier and funnier over time. In a decade, it will be out of step with many court precedents, and in a century it will be positively hilarious.
The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller. While the decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms, the decision leaves many important questions unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation, including what regulations are permissible, and which weapons are embraced by the Second Amendment right that the Court has now recognized.
But the ACLU doesn't support them AFAIK; it only supports their RIGHT to freedom of speech. And I applaud them for doing so.Frankly, any group that supports NAMBLA, regardless of all other things, I do not support.
I don’t want to hear any more about the ACLU prevaricating on how they “disagree” with this individual right protected by the Bill of Rights. What I (and many other members) now want is for the ACLU to step to the forefront of protecting our Second Amendment rights so that the damned NRA will stop being the only place liberal gunowners can turn to.
Will you just get with the program? Numerous polls show ~ 75% of US voters know the Second Amendment protects an individual right, and ~65% of registered Democrats agree with that position. We need you to show some leadership and embrace our rights, not leave the Second Amendment neglected for the NRA to continue to wrap in right-wing rhetoric.
Doesn’t your sense of decency demand you treat all of our Constitutional rights equally?
Remember they were founded by communists.
Quit with the ad hominem attacks and lets stick to the substantive arguments.
The Supreme Court is the highest court and the last word, and they have definitively ruled that the RKBA is an individual right ... but the ACLU disagrees?
That's a great way to make your organization even more irrelevent than it already is.
CATO will almost certainly benefit from ACLU's not coming out clearly and stating that their official policy is to consider the 2nd an individual right.
I know that they're going to get my money.
What they are saying is that the SC is the final word-- unless it goes against our viewpoint.
By the statement I have quoted, the ACLU has now identified itself as an organization who is more interested in social engineering rather than codification of rights.
They have supported all kinds of objectionable people, but often in support of a good underlying cause. Maybe the NRA should try to get a permit to hold a rally outside Mayor Bloomberg's office. When it's denied, we go to the ACLU and say "They won't let us speak freely!"They would support NAMBLA but not us.
I have always respected the ACLU and the work they do. They are a vital presence in the face of a government that seems bent on seizing as much personal liberty from its citizens as it can. Why they would choose to endorse government supremacy with respect to such a fundamental human right as self-defense to me is unfathomable. They have shown themselves to be nothing more than puppets of the wealthy left.
Neither does it make financial sense. There are many ridiculous gun laws out there just begging to be repealed in the light of Heller. Think about all the contributions that would roll in if the ACLU had announced that they will defend Second Amendment rights with the legendary vigor with which they defend the others!
I guess “power to the people” is a bit anachronistic, too.
I have the feeling that this policy is going to get reversed.