Heller / Individual Rights / ACLU Policy #47

[Jax]

ACLU Policy #47 states:

"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."

It will be interesting to see if/how the ACLU alters its position if the Heller ruling determines that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

Jax

 

[Standing Wolf]

It will be interesting to see if/how the ACLU alters its position if the Heller ruling determines that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

Leftist extremists are usually quicker to "update" their "positions" than frogs in frying pans.

 

[alemonkey]

So they're for civil liberties except when it's inconvenient for them.

 

[waterhouse]

If the judges rule as we hope they will, a thread in activism on this and other gun boards with an email campaign will at least get the ACLU to think about their position.

They'll at least have to change their webpage, either to say that they will now stand up for individual rights or to say that they've really thought gun owners were a bunch of crazies all along.

 

[TexasRifleman]

So they're for civil liberties except when it's inconvenient for them.

And such an odd position, in that they spend all their time telling people not to trust the government yet they want to take away the only means of actually fighting back.

But as I've learned the "victim" mentality plays into their hands.

They want people to be victims. Only victims need the ACLU.

 

[MIL-DOT]

I can't see the ACLU changing it's position because of a court ruling they don't agree with. They'll continue to subvert the constitution and further their agendas.

 

[El Tejon]

Why would an organization that is devoted to destroying the U.S. Constitution care one whit what the Supreme Court says?

 

[k_dawg]

The ACLU are not unlike the slave owners of the 19th century. Even when made illegal, they'll continue to defend their immoral position.

We'll simply enter an era of Jim Crow Laws.

 

[gc70]

It will be interesting to see if/how the ACLU alters its position if the Heller ruling determines that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

Here you go; an easy fix:

"The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's recent interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 2008 case, D.C. v. Heller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies to self defense and not the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals should not be constitutionally protected. Therefore, there should be no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms."

 

[Ratzinger_p38]

"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."

Are they just dishonest, stupid, or both? Miller says no such thing. Do they think no one will check the caselaw?

ACLU was founded by communists and continues to be run by socialists/commies.

 

[green-grizzly]

The ACLU, when it first adopted its position on the 2nd amendment, actually included in its policy a statement supporting strict gun control. Then someone reminded them that they are allegedly a civil rights organization and not an openly leftist political lobby; that portion of the opinion was subsequently removed.

 

[Vibe]

Leave it to the the American Criminal Liberties Union to maintain what ever view they want.

 

[Ratzinger_p38]

The ACLU, when it first adopted its position on the 2nd amendment, actually included in its policy a statement supporting strict gun control. Then someone reminded them that they are allegedly a civil rights organization and not an openly leftist political lobby; that portion of the opinion was subsequently removed.

Really? May I see proof? (I believe you but I want to show one of buddies who an ACLU member but pro gun)

Leave it to the the American Criminal Liberties Union to maintain what ever view they want

Also known as the Anti Christian Litigation Unit

 

[Rio Laxas]

Before the Heller case, I contacted the ACLU by email and urged them to file an amicus brief in support of Heller. I got an automated response full of drivel that told me that state affiliates were the proper place to contact if I needed legal assistance. I tried to respond to them, pointing out that I was asking the national organization to take a position on a case that has nothing to do with me personally, but the reply was never delivered.

I have always found great fault with the national ACLU organization. I feel they spend too much time focusing on issues that are not really consequential to individual liberties, but are important to many of their supporters.

On other hand, the ACLU of Texas helped to pass the revises traveling laws that explicitly took away the ability of rogue prosecutors like Chuck Rosenthal to arrest people for lawfully carrying a firearm in their vehicle.

 

[stevelyn]

The ACLU has it's roots in Communism. An individual rights ruling goes against their manifesto and their long term interests.

 

[green-grizzly]

Vibe:

The policy supporting gun control was in a footnote to policy #47. I did a quick search, and found a description of the footnote and the debate here: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/con11.htm

When the Board adopted the June 1979 policy,
it was suggested that it was unclear as to whether or not the ACLU
supported gun control as a civil liberties matter, or simply did not oppose
government regulation on this issue. In order to clarify this question,
the following sentence was added to paragraph three of the policy as a
footnote. "It is the sense of this body, that the word 'justifies' in
this policy means we will affirmatively support gun control legislation."

At the April 12-13, 1980 Board meeting, the policy's footnote was
reconsidered. Several Board members believed that the statement was
inconsistent with the rest of the policy because there was no civil
liberties rationale within the policy for affirmative ACLU support of
gun control legislation. The Board then moved to refer the policy to
the Due Process Committee to refine and discuss further the rationale
for affirmative ACLU support of gun control legislation.

At the June 23-24, 1982 Board meeting, the Due Process Committee
recommended deletion of the footnote from the gun control policy. The
Committee's recommendation was based on the fact that no acceptable
civil liberties rationale could be developed for affirmative support
of gun control legislation. The link between guns and the breakdown
of civil liberties, the Committee suggested, contains too much of the
approach to crime control. And crime control, the Committee said,
includes measures violative of civil liberties. The possibility that
a person who might be defending his or her self at home might be
arrested for the use of a handgun is troubling. If we support gun
control legislation, we are encouraging the police to search homes,
cars, and persons.

The Due Process Committee suggested that the problem with the footnote
was that it was indefensible on civil liberties grounds, and that it
is not the ACLU's role to commit the ACLU to involve ourselves in
social issues by finding a constitutional basis where there is none.
Even though gun control is a desirable social objective, and it
would be nice to find a civil liberties rationale for affirmative
ACLU support of gun control legislation, the Committee noted that
the ACLU has never supported particular remedies for particular
crimes, and as such, we cannot support gun control legislation.

The Board approved the Committee's recommendation, and deleted the
footnote from the existing policy, but left intact the basic policy
which expressed the ACLU's views.

So although it is no longer the ACLU's polity to actively support gun control legislation, they still think it is a great idea.

 

[LawBot5000]

The ACLU is not that bad. For the most part, they are a mix of liberals and libertarians. Although they piss me off once in a while, the same could be said of nearly any group... the NRA, the GOA (god they piss me off lately), etc. The ACLU in my experience is a 50/50 mix of pro gun and anti gun people. Very far from an anti-gun monolith.

The ACLU does tend to focus too much on completely stupid religious issues to the detriment of more important ones. For example, they have long blocked school reform because of worries that some of the money for vouchers would be spent on religious schools. Nevermind the years of evidence showing that secular private schools spring up nearly overnight to take advantage of the voucher money. And as a result, we are left with the teachers unions.

 

[gfouts15]

Funny, they think "well-regulated" means regulated as in today instead of the meaning "trained" is it was intended. As clueless as ever and yes, they are that bad. They have long been taken over by loons and been taking up the wrong side on almost every civil rights issue. See stoptheaclu.com

 

[Ratzinger_p38]

The ACLU is not that bad. For the most part, they are a mix of liberals and libertarians.

Maybe left-libertarians or big government libertarians, IE Catoites/Reason magazine types. ACLU has in the past supported speech codes and spends most of their time attacking religious displays of ANY kind, based on a flimsy constitutional basis.

There is a big problem with libertarians being identified as culturally leftist, which the ACLU is completely in their 'collective' views on the entire bill of rights. To put it bluntly, they are anti-religion and sometimes even anti-family. Their base is totally hostile to private property. That - coupled with their 2a stance - makes it toxic enough for a libertarian like myself to never support them at all.

 

[Igloodude]

Maybe left-libertarians or big government libertarians, IE Catoites/Reason magazine types.

CATO is actively supporting Levy/Gura in the Heller case, and I read on THR somewhere recently that they were planning on firing up a case in NYC attacking their de facto pistol ban assuming SCOTUS sees things our way. Reason magazine had a pro-Gun Heller editorial four days ago. To describe either of them as "big government" supporters is simply and obviously incorrect.

But this is getting way away from the thread topic. I am looking forward to seeing if the ACLU's position changes following SCOTUS' Heller ruling. Given their positions on affirmative action, civil union type rights for GLBTs, and the death penalty (all of which disagree with current SCOTUS rulings on the respective issues), I don't expect any change.

 

[Ratzinger_p38]

CATO is actively supporting Levy/Gura in the Heller case, and I read on THR somewhere recently that they were planning on firing up a case in NYC attacking their de facto pistol ban assuming SCOTUS sees things our way. Reason magazine had a pro-Gun Heller editorial four days ago. To describe either of them as "big government" supporters is simply and obviously incorrect.

You're right. It is OT. But if youd like an explanation PM me. Being right on one issue does not make them right on others. For the one issue you mention them being good on, I can name five times as many they are dead wrong on - going with the big government solution.