ACLU sues over gun...

Status
Not open for further replies.
I was a very ardent supporter of the ACLU pre-Heller. I could understand, but not agree with, their position on the 2nd. Post-Heller, I was quite confident that the ruling would cause them to change their position on the 2nd. I figured that these are smart guys, the ruling is definitive, they'll come around.

But no, they immediately dug in their heels and unequivocally stated that they thought that the Heller ruling was incorrect and that their position was correct. IMO they are now in direct defiance of the 2nd; as such they oppose the fundamental principles that support this nation, this taints everything they do.

Giving them money would mean that I also oppose the fundamental principles that support this nation. So I stopped giving and told them to stuff it.
 
I know the ACLUs stance on firearms. You aren't telling me anything that I don't already know, so I'm not quite sure what the purpose is for your post. I wish the ACLU did more to support the second amendment, as I too agree that it is necessary to defend our other rights. However, their lack of support for the second amendment simply does not invalidate the massive amount of effort that the ACLU has put into defending civil liberties in thousands of other cases, just as Thomas Jefferson's ownership of slaves does not invalidate his ideas on government and liberty.

Not everything is black and white, my friends. The ACLU is neither all good nor all bad. I'll be the first to outline its shortcomings, just as I'll be the first to recognize its benefits. And I'll do the same with every organization, from the NRA on down. I suggest you all do the same.
 
daniel, I don't think that was the point.

I think the point is that the ACLU actively OPPOSES a SCOTUS decision that furthers the cause of civil liberties. That's not the same as ignoring it.

Like I said, there are other groups that can use money to defend civil liberties, like IJ and FIRE.

The ACLU isn't some magical entity. They can be replaced if need be, and/or change their stance on one thing or another if the money dries up and goes to other groups.

If the ACLU were alone, or if it were the only group that actually did anything (like the NRA), I'd be more apt to support them. As it stands, opposition to civil liberties means my money goes elsewhere.

The ACLU doesn't take every case. That's why FIRE was started, I believe. So they pick and choose. That's probably not a reason not to support them, unless their picks and choices demonstrate an egregious violation of their own claimed principles.

However, what if the ACLU opposed equal protection for Jews? Would you support the ACLU then? I see little difference in their active opposition to the 2nd Amendment, as opposed to simply saying, "2nd Amendment cases are not our mission. XY and Z are", and a hypothetical active opposition to equal protection under the law for Jews.
 
daniel1113 said:
However, their lack of support for the second amendment simply does not invalidate the massive amount of effort that the ACLU has put into defending civil liberties in thousands of other cases
Click to expand...

That is why I used the word "taint."

Not everything is black and white, my friends. The ACLU is neither all good nor all bad. I'll be the first to outline its shortcomings, just as I'll be the first to recognize its benefits. And I'll do the same with every organization, from the NRA on down. I suggest you all do the same.
Click to expand...

I already did what you suggest post-Heller, as I mentioned in my post. The examination led me to CATO. The ACLU isn't the only game in town.
 
I wonder where the National ACLU stands on things like
road side check points, Jim crow (get permission from the sheriff to buy a handgun) laws
and the ridiculous infringement on the 2a called NICS?

Perhaps they should look into the current situation
where ATF agents are knocking on people's doors asking to see their guns?

I'm not an expert on the ACLU, but from what I've seen,
they sure have a twisted view of what this country is founded on.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
How can they reconcile this action with their official policy statement #47?

http://www.aclu.org/crimjustice/gen/35904res20020304.html

See where they "disagree" with the Heller ruling? If they disagree, then why are they helping this man? I'm glad they are; just asking. Any ACLU members know?

Hey ACLU, I also "disagree" with the court cases that say the 16th amendment was properly ratified. So will you defend me if I quit filing tax returns, since what we all believe is more important than what the law IS?
 
e where they "disagree" with the Heller ruling? If they disagree, then why are they helping this man? I'm glad they are; just asking. Any ACLU members know?
Click to expand...

As I posted earlier, the national ACLU has no involvement in this.

The state organizations run themselves completely independently of the national group.

All they have in common is the name.

Many state level ACLU's have taken aggressive pro 2A stances in the past. Texas, Louisiana, and Washington are ones I know about for sure but there are probably others.
 
This is pure theft. Glad the ACLU is doing something somewhat progun for a change.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that in this case, the ACLU is getting involved on the basis of due process, not the 2A.

So they ACLU doesn't support the 2A as protecting an individual right. Do they actively work against the RKBA? Or do they simply refuse to assist in defense of it?

If they aren't actively working against the RKBA, then let it go. Defending the RKBA in court and through lobbying is unlike any of the other enumerated rights. Look at the sizes of the GOA and NRA, and compare that to the size of the ACLU. Neither the ACLU or any other single-issue group can match them. I would say it's easier to defend things like freedom of speech, religion, voting rights, and equal treatment, than it is to defend the RKBA. Besides, a lot of the people who give time and money to the ACLU are anti-gun types. If the anti-gunners want to support freedom of speech, or anti-discrimination through the ACLU, I'm not going to complain.

I'll complain about the ACLU for supporting affirmative action, but I won't complain about them not supporting RKBA.
 
Do they actively work against the RKBA?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Their official position has always been intended to legitimize the "collective rights" fabrication.

The ACLU carries a fair amount of weight in the world of civil liberties, as a nationwide association of civil liberties attorneys.

Consider this hypothetical scenario.

The NRA displays prominently on their website:

Assault Weapons are meant to kill our enemies in war, and have no place in civilian hands. 5-round magazines are enough for any legitimate use of a firearm. Self-defense with firearms is so rare that it is almost an urban myth. Guns should be regulated strictly, because it is far more likely that a gun will be used in a crime than for self-defense. Concealed Carry should not be legal for civilians, as it will only lead to pointless violence as people use guns in fights over parking spaces in the city.

But then the NRA doesn't actively work to ban AR-15 rifles. They just ignore any bans or restrictions, as their official position is that no civilian needs to have an AR.

If that scenario were real, would you think that the NRA, which has clout among allies and adversaries, is working against RKBA?

I sure would!
 
But the ACLU makes no such statement either.

The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue.
Click to expand...

I don't see the ACLU as relevant to the RKBA debate, and they don't seem to see the RKBA as relevant to their agenda vis a vis civil liberties.

The difference is that the NRA lobbies for pro RKBA legislation and uses its money and membership to go after anti politicians. The ACLU doesn't lobby on RKBA issues, and doesn't use a political arm to go after politicians on the basis of their RKBA voting record.
 
But the ACLU makes no such statement either.
Click to expand...

Yes, they do.

I don't think you understand what official and prominent support of the "collective rights" lie means. It's the equivalent, given the place in politics, culture and law that each organization has in the US.
 
But the ACLU makes no such statement either.
Click to expand...


Really?

In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue.
Click to expand...

You don't consider that an anti Second Amendment statement?

They don't say "we don't care one way or the other" , they flat out say that they don't believe the Second Amendment exists for citizens.

That's an anti statement, not neutral. Why so many want to give them a pass as being "neutral" towards the Second Amendment is beyond me.

Regardless of other great things they may do they remain today an anti gun organization, by their own admission.
 
Bottom line: the best-known and largest group of civil liberties attorneys claiming that there IS no right to keep and bear arms is absolutely equivalent to the best-known and largest firearms organization claiming that banning semiautomatics is not an infringement on gun rights.
 
Bottom line: the best-known and largest group of civil liberties attorneys claiming that there IS no right to keep and bear arms is absolutely equivalent to the best-known and largest firearms organization claiming that banning semiautomatics is not an infringement on gun rights.
Click to expand...

Do they actively litigate against the RKBA?

If they didn't actively litigate against discrimination and against infringement of free speech and freedom of religion.... if all they did was say they were for it... how useful would they be as an organization?

It's what they do in the courtroom that counts.

As far as I've seen, they have an opinion on the RKBA, but they do nothing about it.
 
I don't agree with the position they have taken in regards to the 2A, but they don't litigate of behalf of cities or individuals who try to ban guns. They don't file amicus briefs in 2A cases, AFAIK. What they say is they don't view the RKBA as an individual right so they stay out of the issue. That's fine with me. I don't expect the NRA to litigate for strong 4th Amendment rights.
 
The Soviets didn't care WHY we invaded Normandy, just that we did.

Likewise, we didn't care WHY the Soviets defeated the Germans at Kursk, just that they did.

A "wrongful taking" win by the ACLU that gets a guy his gun back is a 2nd Amendment win, no matter the motivation.
 
ACLU is about citizen's rights, right? That's a liberal* political stance. Why then are they going against that in being anti-gun rights?

*I realize many americans might think liberal is what you normally hear about in the news, but no, liberalism is something else. Have a look at wikipedia. Essentially privacy and people's right to choose for themselves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Tinpig
  • Locked
ACLU defends gun owner's rights...
2
Replies
44
Views
3K
JustinJ
J
L
  • Locked
two of my friends viciously gunned down (duplicate threads merged)
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
jmcc11
J
J
  • Locked
NRA response to LA
Replies
7
Views
562
James T Thomas
J
B
  • Locked
NRA/SAF Sues New Orlelans/New Orleans claims no guns seized
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
Kamicosmos
K
R
  • Locked
Officer sues Amtrak over shot foot
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
bdickens
B
Back
Top