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

[baz]

Full story here.

I don't often find myself agreeing with the ACLU, but their position on this is going to help our cause. Politics does sometimes make strange bedfellows. Now, the person interviewed does say that don't oppose UBC per se, but their arguments against Reid's bill are all very sound and perceptive. Now if we could just get them to see that the 2nd Amendment is a civil right per se, that would be even better.

 

[AirForceShooter]

Since Heller and McDonald the ACLU has recognized the 2nd as an individual right.
They're on board with us.

AFS

 

[ChaoSS]

The ACLU is not on our side, but I like that they oppose this.

After Heller, I believe that they are still stating that their position is under review, and that the future will determine what gun rights are protected under the constitution, without giving any real opinion on it.

 

[Yo Mama]

Spoke with the local ACLU in AZ.

"The 2nd is not a civil rights issue."

:banghead:

 

[Kim]

Nope. The ACLU laughs at the 2nd amendment as an individual right. Do not be fooled. Some local chapters are different but the National leadership is not on our side. Far from it.

 

[mljdeckard]

Talk is cheap. When they send an amicus brief for or co-counsel a serious pro-2a case, I will trust them.

 

[JustinJ]

While i've always been dissapointed in the ACLU's lack of 2nd amendment support the group does not lobby against gun rights either, that i'm aware of. So while they may not be on the gun communities side, directly anyways, they are not on the other side either.

 

[jerkface11]

There is no room for middle ground.

 

[Ryanxia]

Well that could be helpful.

 

[HoosierQ]

I've never understood why "we" all hate the ACLU so much. Yes, they have tended to take up some unpopular causes as well as popular causes that tend to be popular with a demographic other than "us".

I think any of them support the 2nd Amendment is a good thing.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

The ACLU concern is Privacy Rights. Gun Control inherently compromises Fourth and Fifth Amendment. ACLU is on top of 4A and 4A concerns. For 2A, I look to NRA, SAF, GOA, JPOFO.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/04/e...could-threaten-privacy-rights-civil-liberties
Vince Coglianese, "EXCLUSIVE: ACLU says Reid’s gun legislation could threaten privacy rights, civil liberties", The Daily Caller, 4 Apr 2013.

Chris Calabrese, lobbyist for American Civil Liberties Union, announced ACLU had concerns about the threats to civil liberties and privacy rights aonatined in the Democrat gun control bill.

TIPLINE

Senator Barbara Boxer wants to establish a high school tip line for anonymously reporting "potentially dangerous students". A vague proposal with unclear definitions or legal controls. Calabrese says 911 is for credible reports of dangerous situations (CNB: but 911 is not anonymous!)

UBC

Calabrese points out the bill would create two background check systems:
(a) the Federal Firearms License FFL dealer system where the goal is to assure that the buyer is not in the National Instant Check System NICS as a person prohibited from buying or owning a gun (record of the buyer destroyed within 24 hrs and by law not used for other purposes), and
(b) a unlicensed transferor to unlicensed transferee Universal Background Check UBC system over private transfer of used guns between individuals where records could be kept forever and could be used for other purposes in violation of the federal Privacy Act without any of the controls of the NICS.

GUN "TRANSFER" DEFINITION

Calabrese: "We [ACLU] think it’s important that anything that is tied to a criminal sanction be easy to understand and avoid allowing too much prosecutorial discretion."



My [CNB's] concern is that what constitutes a private "transfer" requiring a UBC is not clear. The Obama Administration and the Democrats use the NSPOF survey "40% non-store gun acquisitions" as sales (transfers) without background checks. The 60% store sales are FFLs with NICS checks. The Democrats want UBC checks on the other 40%. The NSPOF 40% stat breaks down to:
13% private sales of used guns
19% gifts between family and friends
3% trades or swaps
5% inheritances from dead relatives.

Even with all the publicity about this, I'll bet millions of people will not see giving a gun as a birthday or Christmas gift as a "transfer" requiring a UBC. If a hunter traded an unwanted pump-action turkey gun with a fellow gun club member for a Savage .30-30/12ga over/under, would they see that as a transfer requiring a UBC? Would ordinary hunters who don't follow the gun laws closely know what UBC is or what it requires? How does a dead relative conduct a UBC on an heir, anyway?

 

[Walkalong]

I've never understood why "we" all hate the ACLU so much

Because they consider gun owning NRA members who believe in the 2nd Amendment, the Constitution, and are against big government as a hate group?

This might be good news though. Gotta take help where you can get it.

 

[mljdeckard]

Because to be a member, you have to cut off a finger.

 

[heeler]

I agree this *might* be helpful to our cause.
But I dont have complete trust with the ACLU and I am obviously not alone with these thoughts.

 

[wojownik]

I've never understood why "we" all hate the ACLU so much. Yes, they have tended to take up some unpopular causes as well as popular causes that tend to be popular with a demographic other than "us".

I think any of them support the 2nd Amendment is a good thing.

A couple of clarifying points - the national ACLU organization does not support the 2nd Amendment in the way many of us interpret it. The ACLU's organizational position is that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. This is a big difference. Their logic on this bounces around a bit - noting the precendent in Miller, strongly disagreeing with Heller, and then noting that their interpretation of 2A is based on their own understanding and not SCOTUS anyway. So they'll agree with SCOTUS when convenient for them, and disagree when inconvenient.

A small handful of state ACLU groups do, in fact, voice some support for 2A issues. The Nevada ACLU affiliate is one, for example. These folks are interesting, in that they give explicit recognition to the Heller decision, while the national ACLU organization wants to make pretend that Heller was a mistake or abberation. But even here, the ACLU chapter leaves the door wide open to restrictions: "Nevada ACLU respects the individual's right to bear arms subject to constitutionally permissible regulation."

So back to the OP, the ACLU is NOT supporting 2A issues - they are concerned with the privacy and other civil liberty issues that Reid's proposal would create.

The ACLU is squawking only because this control scheme raises troubling issues in terms of government recordkeeping and privacy rights, government and police surveillance, etc.

Which brings me to this thought. When speaking with folks who are neutral to negative on the 2A, it can't hurt to remind them that many of the gun control proposals being floated are very troublesome in terms of creating new massive government databases of individual information, merging existing databases from the public and private sectors, etc. Just ask them how they feel about potentially having all their health, civil and other records accessible at some civil servant's whim? The potential for abuse is enormous. That's what the ACLU is concerned with - we are concerned with a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution, and they are concerned with some much broader consequences.

We should be concerned about both.


.

 

[Joe Friday]

It's amazing this country still exists with this many idiots running it.

 

[JustinJ]

Because they consider gun owning NRA members who believe in the 2nd Amendment, the Constitution, and are against big government as a hate group?

Riiiight, the group that actively lobbies on behalf of protecting the free speech of all groups, including actual hate groups, runs around accusing the NRA of being one.

I've never understood why "we" all hate the ACLU so much.

Because many of "us" are hypocrites. "We" talk about freedoms, rights and keeping the government out of people's lives but then "we" support any legislation that imposes our views on others and try to use the government for "our" own type of social engineering. "We" adopt constitutional interpretations that support "our" views rather than objective ones and "we" choose to ignore the intent of the 1st and other amendments in spite of the numerous available writings by their drafters. Some of us disagree with the ACLU on the second but acknowledge that they don't work against it so some of us who believe in the priniciple of liberty do support them.

 

[wojownik]

Just a suggestion - google the words NRA and ALCU together in a search. You'll find a surprising number of articles going back a decade where the two organizations are objecting to the same gun control measures - from different standpoints to be sure. Each organization gets motivated by different jumping off points - such as proposals to block gun sales to suspects (not convicted persons, merely "suspects"). The key trigger for the NRA is "gun sales." The motivator for the ACLU is "suspects."

ACLU has its criticisms of the NRA. Sure, and so do many members of this forum, for various reasons.

But, bottom line for me is that if NRA and ACLU both line up against a proposed measure, it's worth considering that something really bad is being proposed.

 

[TCB in TN]

IMHO most of the problem that most of us have with the ACLU come from philosophical differences. Simplest explanation; the ACLU is perceived by many (including myself) as a liberal/progressive organization, I am politically a libertarian, even though my personal life I am a moral and fiscal conservative. I can live with their PoV, they seem to have more difficultly living with mine.

 

[threoh8]

IIRC, the ACLU agreed with the NRA in opposing the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act, which limited free speech in the form of campaign ads by groups.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

ACLU Comes Out Against Universal Background Checks

http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/04/e...ould-threaten-privacy-rights-civil-liberties/

While I find it distressing that the national ACLU still takes the position that Heller was decided wrongly, I was pleased to see they recognized the privacy concerns and civil rights problems with the current legislation in the Senate. While many progressives may not care for the opinion of the NRA, having the ACLU speak out against the bill may carry more weight and also gives Senators on the fence a reason to vote against the bill that they can explain to their progressive constituents.

 

[hso]

as a hate group?

Got your information wrong there. ACLU doesn't take that position at all.

The national takes a collective interpretation of the 2A in spite of their support for all other amendments as individual rights.

Individual state chapters take the individual right interpretation while others take the collective position.

There are several instances where ACLU has added their voice to protect the right of an individual where a firearm is involved, but not on the basis of the firearms rights.

 

[HankR]

Proof that the enemy of my enemy is not my friend, but in this case I'll welcome them as an ally.

 

[benEzra]

Because they consider gun owning NRA members who believe in the 2nd Amendment, the Constitution, and are against big government as a hate group?

You're thinking of the SPLC, not the ACLU.

 

[Cosmoline]

The national organization is still waiting for the Supreme Supreme Court to review the Supreme court's ruling:

http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_...law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendment

Some of the local chapters have adopted a pro-Second view, but the money for this place is overwhelmingly from the left. Whether or not we should start donating and swaying the balance is a good question. The ACLU is a powerful tool.