ACLU and Heller

[DrDeFab]

From the ACLU review of the Supreme Court term:

http://www.aclu.org/scotus/2007term/35797prs20080626.html

The Right To Bear Arms

The Second Amendment has not been the subject of much Supreme Court discussion through the years. To the extent it has been discussed, the Court has described the Second Amendment as designed to protect the ability of the states to preserve their own sovereignty against a new and potentially overreaching national government. Based on that understanding, the Court has historically construed the Second Amendment as a collective right connected to the concept of a "well-regulated militia" rather than an individual right to possess guns for private purposes.

In Heller, the Court reinterpreted the Second Amendment as a source of individual rights. Washington D.C.'s gun control law, which bans the private possession of handguns and was widely considered the most restrictive such law in the country, became a victim of that reinterpretation.

The Court was careful to note that the right to bear arms is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable regulation. Yet, by concluding that D.C.'s gun control law was unreasonable and thus invalid, the Court placed a constitutional limit on gun control legislation that had not existed prior to its decision in Heller. It is too early to know how much of a constitutional straitjacket the new rule will create.

There's enough of a libertarian streak in me that I would like to support the ACLU, despite many differences of opinion. Their past stance on the 2A has always been a showstopper. The above statement doesn't look promising - what do you think?

 

[mnrivrat]

I don't think the ALCU is our friend at all - just another organization that thinks it's Ok to pick and choose what rights people should have and what they will support.

 

[Mr White]

A hyena doesn't change its spots.

 

[Soybomb]

That leaves little doubt on their stance. I will continue to support the ACLU's work as long as they don't take any actions to harm the 2nd amendment though.

 

[str8t shootr]

The ACLU thinks they know which rights were should be allowed to have. I wouldn't support them is they offered me help.

 

[obmax1212]

I think it's interesting that any time the SCOTUS rules in favor of individual rights the ACLU is quick to praise them, but in this case they aren't. The ACLU is dominated by liberals.

 

[strat81]

In Heller, the Court reinterpreted the Second Amendment as a source of individual rights.

Um, no. It has always been an individual right. Scalia, et al. just reminded folks about that.

ACLU=FAIL.

 

[Docgmt]

ACLU Membership?

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer ( JFK I think) It would be good to have a few friends in the anti-constitution lawyers union to keep up on what they are doing. BUT it wouldn’t be me. Any group that attacks the Boy Scouts the way they do does NOT get a dime from me

 

[HK G3]

Technically, strat81, this is the first time, to my recollection, where the court has absolutely declared it as such, and as you can see, there were 4 justices who didn't share that view.

But I agree, the BoR are individual rights, and it's about time that the 2A was declared an individual right.

 

[Standing Wolf]

The ACLU is dominated by liberals.

Nope. It's dominated by leftist extremists. Has been for decades.

 

[bogie]

That is because you haven't become involved. If 3,000,000 folks up and joined, and then told them that they were going to un-join the next year if the organization didn't listen to reason...

 

[SAG0282]

I want to like the ACLU, but just can't, and that little blurb reinforced it.

The Court did NOT reinterpret anything......

 

[Mongo the Mutterer]

bogie, if you support the ACLU and the total slimeball loser Ray Hartmann in the St. Louis area, that is all I need to know about you .

How about the child pornographer in Virginia who was President of the ACLU?

For those of you not in STL, I apologize but Hartmann is a vile leftist who should be in Frisco, not the Heartland...

 

[SSN Vet]

the ACLU is the singular most anti-American organization there is. Period!

they are also the epitome of hypocrisy....

Free Speach = child pornography

The right to keep and bare arms = the right of the government to disarm those who would resist their organizations abuse of the judiciary to fulfill their agenda.

they can all rot!

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

It is too early to know how much of a constitutional straitjacket the new rule will create.

It seemed fairly factual and balanced until that last sentence, upon where their bias became clear. It's all in the perspective. The pro-gun people look at the decision as expanding freedom. Only a rabid anti-gunner would use the phrase "straitjacket", looking at it from the perspective of the government, rather than from the perspective of the individual. Very telling, that word straitjacket is, particularly from a group whose JOB it is to protect *individual* rights as against the government. Of course, they're technically right - it IS a type of straightjacket on the government - that's the point. But a pro-freedom person would make this point using a differenct word, such as constraint, not the negatively-connotated straitjacket, as if tying up the government power were somehow a bad thing.

Oh that word, and also, as pointed out the word "RE-interpret" - that is not true. US v. Miller made it pretty clear that the right is individual - it is only the rogue circuit courts such as the Ninth who have in the interim misinterpreted Miller's plain dicta, and since the SCOTUS abdicated its duty for nearly 70 years to rule and thus overrule the Ninth, that became the majority opinion (Until Emerson in the 5th Circuit creating a split).

 

[TexasRifleman]

and as you can see, there were 4 justices who didn't share that view.

I'm not sure those 4 scumbags would agree with the others that the world is ROUND.

 

[strat81]

Technically, strat81, this is the first time, to my recollection, where the court has absolutely declared it as such, and as you can see, there were 4 justices who didn't share that view.

I never said this wasn't the first time the Supreme Court ever ruled that way. The court didn't reinterpret anything. If, next year, a similar case goes in front of the court and that court says it's a collective right, THEN there will be reinterpretation.

IMO, the ruling was the equivalent of SCOTUS saying "Water is wet." I know it, you know it, but some folks are as dumb as a box of rocks.

I'm not sure those 4 scumbags would agree with the others that the world is ROUND.

The world isn't round. Technically, it's an oblate spheroid.

 

[Huddog]

The ACLU has always amazed me in that they supposedly stand for the people and stopping the government from oppressing the people and yet on this the most clearly worded amendment of them all they have been silent or antigun. What is not generally understood in my opinion is that all those other rights are subject to deterioration without a strong 2nd. Heller is the beginning the true war will be in the testing as to what SCOTUS will see as acceptable limitations and that my friends will be a long and ponderous journey.

 

[GigaBuist]

As long as the ACLU doesn't do anything to hurt the 2nd amendment I'm fine with them. They do good work in other areas and I'm perfectly happy leaving the 2A stuff to the NRA and other groups that concentrate entirely on gun rights.

 

[TexasRifleman]

The world isn't round. Technically, it's an oblate spheroid.

Thanks Justice Stevens

 

[.cheese.]

The ACLU has always held that the status of whether or not the 2A is actually an individual right is controversial and therefore they don't deal with it.

If the continue now to exclude it, it will show once and for all what a sham the ACLU is.

This, coming from somebody who has worked for them and saw firsthand the baloney that goes on there. I used to support them.... I quit because I saw what a sham they were. I am not renewing my membership either. Some of you might have noticed I removed the "ACLU Member" line from my sig over a month ago.

 

[TexasRifleman]

he ACLU has always held that the status of whether or not the 2A is actually an individual right is controversial and therefore they don't deal with it.

No, they flat out said they took the position that it was NOT an individual right.

ACLU policy (before today )

ACLU POLICY “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.” –Policy #47

Doesn't sound like they were just staying out of it to me. Sounds like they took a pretty firm stance. Especially since that's not even close to what Miller said.

 

[strat81]

Thanks Justice Stevens

LOL
Take that back! No name calling on THR!

 

[iowajones]

Joke from Best of the Web Today

I was reading the Best of the Web Today column (link) and there's a line in there I wanted to share with everybody:

Q: How does an ACLU lawyer count to 10?

A: 1, 3, 4, 5 . . .

It's might be an old line (new to me), but it's very telling...

 

[Picard]

Hilarious.