ACLU says Reid’s gun legislation could threaten privacy rights, civil liberties

Status
Not open for further replies.
Got your information wrong there. ACLU doesn't take that position at all.
Click to expand...
My bad, I was thinking of the SPLC. They are here in town and security is like fort Knox.
 
Plus one - HankR #23.

Of course they are also probably the biggest obstacle in getting around the privacy rule in the HIPPA act which allows "crazY' people from legally buying guns from dealers.
 
Consider: next time one of my liberal academic friends dismisses NRA opposition as "extreme.right wing nutty paranoia", I can tell them this UBC thing is SO MUCH WORSE than they've been told that the *ACLU* has publicly stated that they are worried....

Watch their professorial faces go sheet white...
 
The ACLU itself says, "The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment." That means that they still hold to the position that there is no individual right for any one to own a firearm of any kind, and that the Second Amendment applies only to the right of a state to support a militia for the protection of the state itself.

They are NOT our friends.

Jim
 
In fairness, the national ACLU position is as follows:

The Second Amendment provides: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

ACLU POSITION
Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view. This position is currently under review and is being updated by the ACLU National Board in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller in 2008.
In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia. The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. However, particular federal or state laws on licensing, registration, prohibition, or other regulation of the manufacture, shipment, sale, purchase or possession of guns may raise civil liberties questions.


ANALYSIS
Although ACLU policy cites the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Miller as support for our position on the Second Amendment, our policy was never dependent on Miller. Rather, like all ACLU policies, it reflects the ACLU's own understanding of the Constitution and civil liberties.

Heller takes a different approach than the ACLU has advocated. At the same time, it leaves many unresolved questions, including what firearms are protected by the Second Amendment, what regulations (short of an outright ban) may be upheld, and how that determination will be made.

Those questions will, presumably, be answered over time.
Click to expand...
 
Regardless on differences about the ACLU's support of the 2A, true supporters and lovers of liberty and Constitutional freedoms should support what the ACLU stands for.
 
Regardless on differences about the ACLU's support of the 2A, true supporters and lovers of liberty and Constitutional freedoms should support what the ACLU stands for.
Click to expand...

Differences? They don't support the second amendment at all. They claim to be a civil rights group yet they ignore this one for political reasons. I see no reason to support them at all.
 
The ACLU has always seemed to me to be on the side of the common man with respect to government over reaching its legal boundaries.
I could see them intervening in situations like Bloomberg telling people what to eat or drink. And have been useful before in overturning unjust laws.
I don't know what their stance is on guns, but they are usually on the side of government not interfering with private citizens.
Being that they are Liberals I would expect that they may not be thrilled with us, but would defend our rights under the law.
 
While the NRA looks after the 2nd Amendment, the ACLU looks after the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th (and maybe others.) What's wrong with that? I don't always agree with them, but I'm glad *somebody* is defending the other fronts.
 
The ACLU does not consider the 2nd to be a civil right. Even though all 3 branches of government, the majority of Americans, the founding fathers and hundreds of years of case law all say it is.

Interesting that a "civil rights" group is almost alone in denying this as a civil right.
 
Well, as long as they don't interfere with the 2A, I really don't see the issue with the ACLU. Really, in this fight we need allies, but its also important to deprive the other side of as much of their support as we can. If the ACLU sits 2A fights out, while they may not be helping us, they are certainly not helping the anti's either.

If they are weighing in that the current "UBC" registration scheme is unconstitutional, this could be the straw we need to break the back of this suggested UBC legislation.

Also, I like Cosmoline's suggestion that it might be time infiltrate the ACLU and make them also more pro-2A.
 
Some of the *state* ACLU's are pro-2A. The national org is not anti, it's just ambivalent.

FWIW, the "law and order, dammit" Republicans that give lip service to the 2nd Amendment and want to trash the rest of the Bill of Rights scare me just as much as the Democrats.
 
zxcvbob said:
Some of the *state* ACLU's are pro-2A. The national org is not anti, it's just ambivalent.

FWIW, the "law and order, dammit" Republicans that give lip service to the 2nd Amendment and want to trash the rest of the Bill of Rights scare me just as much as the Democrats.
Click to expand...
Me too, Methinks they care a wee bit more about order than law.
 
FWIW, the "law and order, dammit" Republicans that give lip service to the 2nd Amendment and want to trash the rest of the Bill of Rights scare me just as much as the Democrats.
Click to expand...

Agree, something to stand up to. But really what laws are they trying to pass right now attacking your rights? Yeah I thought so. Stand up to the enemy in your kitchen, not the one you might think could be a 1000 miles away, maybe.
 
Agree, something to stand up to. But really what laws are they trying to pass right now attacking your rights? Yeah I thought so. Stand up to the enemy in your kitchen, not the one you might think could be a 1000 miles away, maybe.
Click to expand...

That's why I've sent so many letters to my senators, reps, and governor lately about gun rights -- even though I think there are much really greater threats to our freedom. The gun rights threats are more urgent because the Democrats have pushed them to the forefront. When the Republicans get back in control they will attack our other civil rights (Patriot Act :barf:)

The government wants to take away *all* of our civil rights. The 2 parties just trade back and forth and chip away at different rights depending on who's in control at the moment. Eventually we are gonna have to fight another civil war to keep any freedoms at all.
 
How about a stealth takeover of the ACLU?

Ironically, ACLU members don't get to vote.

(I was a long time ACLU member before Heller. I agreed with some of their positions and disagreed with some. I disagreed with their view on the 2nd, but prior to the Heller decision I accepted it as a valid viewpoint (in the sense that when the SC finally spoke, the SC might adopt that position). After Heller, though, when they just said 'well, the SC is wrong', I let my membership lapse.)
 
zxcvbob said:
That's why I've sent so many letters to my senators, reps, and governor lately about gun rights -- even though I think there are much really greater threats to our freedom. The gun rights threats are more urgent because the Democrats have pushed them to the forefront. When the Republicans get back in control they will attack our other civil rights (Patriot Act :barf:)
Click to expand...

I might remind you that the Democrats controlled the Senate, and the Patriot Act passed in the Senate 98 to 1, as did the latest reauthorization, which was signed by President Obama. Even Nancy Pelosi voted in favor of the original Patriot Act in 2001, Get informed.

I have my criticisms of the Republican Party, especially the "establishment" Republicans and the so-called "moderates", but they don't hold a candle to the "Liberal/Progressive" Democrats when it comes to threats to our individual Liberty. Need I remind you of "ObamaCare"?

As a "TEA Party" Republican, I am ideologically linked to Ronald Reagan and Senator Barry Goldwater. You could do a lot worse.
 
I might remind you that the Democrats controlled the Senate, and the Patriot Act passed in the Senate 98 to 1, as did the latest reauthorization, which was signed by President Obama. Even Nancy Pelosi voted in favor of the original Patriot Act in 2001, Get informed.

I have my criticisms of the Republican Party, especially the "establishment" Republicans and the so-called "moderates", but they don't hold a candle to the "Liberal/Progressive" Democrats when it comes to threats to our individual Liberty. Need I remind you of "ObamaCare"?

As a "TEA Party" Republican, I am ideologically linked to Ronald Reagan and Senator Barry Goldwater. You could do a lot worse.
Click to expand...

Home run. Grand slam.

While liberals rail and whine and scream and cry about possible loss of freedoms from the conservative side, they dish up and hand over freedoms and RIGHTS on a blanket of cash smothered with platitudes and complete assurances that our government will never turn against us............well it will never as long as a Democrat is in the WH.........the masses are so easily fooled.
 
i found this on another board....and it pretty much says it all. bolded and underlined added by me.


"count on the ACLU siding with what they will call "reasonable" restrictions...

the ACLU is not a pro constitutuional rights organization, they support personal freedoms, to some extent if they agree with that freedom.

they could care less about your right to keep and bear arms, its the personal privacy issue that brings them to this fight. that is all and you better understand it".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
Nevada ACLU Supports Heller and 2nd Amendment!
2
Replies
49
Views
2K
Rachen
R
Mainsail
  • Locked
The ACLU's Position Next Year?
Replies
19
Views
793
hso
hso
F
  • Locked
The American Hypocrisy Union
2 3
Replies
55
Views
3K
mnrivrat
mnrivrat
B
  • Locked
Will ACLU Support Gun Rights After McDonald?
2 3
Replies
54
Views
2K
Art Eatman
A
A
  • Locked
Nevada ACLU supports an individualgun rights
Replies
4
Views
359
ozwyn
O
Back
Top