ACLU defends gun owner's rights...

[Bubbles]

...but he agreed to be transported to the hospital for a mental health evaluation.

Why anyone would anyone agree to this?

Agreeing means that you voluntarily sought treatment for a potential mental health problem. Not agreeing means that the next step the authorities will take is to get a judge to sign an order for involuntary commitment, and under GCA '68 you will then become a "prohibited person".

 

[Owen Sparks]

The ACLU has shifted from the statist left more towards the libertarian left lately. Gun rights are a civil right and more and more people are starting to realize this.

 

[JustinJ]

The ACLU has shifted from the statist left more towards the libertarian left lately.

No. The ACLU has always protected the indivdual's right to speak against the state, be secure from unreasonable search, seizure or monitoring by the state, the right to petition the state, etc, etc. Just because one disagrees with some of the ACLU's positions does not mean they are "statists".

I am and have always been a supporter of the ACLU. True, i've not been pleased with their position on the second amendment in the past but so long as they have not worked against it i have no problems supporting them.

 

[wally]

but so long as they have not worked against it

That is the problem at the national level, as they deny Heller and McDonald and its RTKBA individual meaning.

Good men doing noting in the presence of evil is defacto support of evil.

 

[JustinJ]

That is the problem at the national level, as they deny Heller and McDonald and its RTKBA individual meaning.

The point is the ACLU does not work against RKBA, regardless of their interpretations. To my knowledge they have never lobbied for stricter regulations regarding firearms.

 

[k_dawg]

No worries. There's more to the bill of rights than the 2nd amendment though. Wish I could just give to one pro-freedom, pro-bill of rights group and be happy with their actions.

That is not so much the problem. Their position that the 2nd amendment does not apply to us, the 'undesirable citizens' is the problem. They give aid and comfort to the Brady Bunch, etc. Their position is used by many gun grabbers.

I could fully accept if they said "We support the 2nd amendment, however, we choose to apply our efforts in X". Any group has to direct their efforts in some direction.

For example, the NRA does not fight freedom of religion (usually). But at least they recognize it, and do not claim it doesn't apply to the same citizens as in the 2nd amendment.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

I would feel much better about them if they took a stand for the 10th Amendment on occasion. They could file suit against just about every law and court decision in the past 100 years.....:banghead:

 

[Deltaboy1984]

Glad his got his guns back!

 

[captmoto]

I don't see this as a second amendment issue. I think it's an unlawful search and seizure the ACLU was going after.

 

[Tinpig]

I don't see this as a second amendment issue. I think it's an unlawful search and seizure the ACLU was going after.

The ACLU's suit claimed that the Cranston PD "violated [Machado's] right to due process and his right to keep and bear arms by retaining his property without just cause."

Tinpig

 

[Captaingyro]

This is a pretty straightforward case. The ACLU simply weighed their distaste for thuggish, overbearing police departments against their distaste for the Second Amendment. Thuggish and overbearing lost.

 

[Buzznrose]

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.

I agree, this is a good thing on their part, but one good deed does not erase all the stupid stuff thay have done as an organization.

Still...a flicker of hope?

 

[Neverwinter]

I agree, this is a good thing on their part, but one good deed does not erase all the stupid stuff thay have done as an organization.

What stupid stuff have they done other than state a poor opinion regarding the breadth of civil liberties covered by the Bill of Rights?

 

[SuperNaut]

What stupid stuff have they done other than state a poor opinion regarding the breadth of civil liberties covered by the Bill of Rights?

They went further than that, the ACLU OFFICIALLY stated that the Heller Decision was completely wrong and the Supreme Court had overstepped their bounds and that the ACLU actively opposed the decision. The original statement looked quite different from the one they have now.

They only changed because of the backlash, their beliefs remain the same.

 

[k_dawg]

What I find unfanthomable are those who claim they are about defending 'rights', yet oppose the very mechanism by which gov't tyranny is to be defended from!

Having the 'right' to writ of habeas corpus did not matter much when they were loaded onto the cattle cars.

 

[hso]

The point of the OP is that the state ACLUs defend citizens who have had their 2A rights violated by the government. They are different than the national organization. Natitonal isn't the topic and ranting about them is a hijack of the OP.

 

[SuperNaut]

The point of the OP is that the state ACLUs defend citizens who have had their 2A rights violated by the government. They are different than the national organization. Natitonal isn't the topic and ranting about them is a hijack of the OP.

True, my bad!

 

[ErikO]

I support the Missouri ACLU and speak with National-level folks as often as I can.

If they keep promoting pro-gun State-level folks to the National office, things will be better soon-ish.

 

[Jim K]

In the Kenyon Ballew case the [National] ACLU said that people who own guns must expect to be shot down by the police. In another case, they said that gun owners have no civil or constitutional rights. AFAIK, they have always taken the position of oppressive dictators that only government forces should be allowed to have guns. For some reason, this is always called the "liberal" postion, when it should be described as the tyrannical position.

Jim

 

[JustinJ]

In the Kenyon Ballew case the [National] ACLU said that people who own guns must expect to be shot down by the police.

Could you please elaborate? Did they say this during a trial, press release, memo, etc? Link would be preferable if available.

In another case, they said that gun owners have no civil or constitutional rights.

Again, please specify. Did they allegedly say gun owners have not rights or citizens have no rights to guns? What case and how and where did they say this?