TT
member
I won’t hold my breath waiting for that.
ACLU Victory for Gun Rights
- Thread starter ArmedBear
- Start date
- Status
I won’t hold my breath waiting for that.
That is true and it's a very important point. For whatever reason, and for the purposes of this discussion, the ACLU has been demonized by the right end of the political spectrum for no decent reason except that somebody wanted a whipping boy. By the time a certain segment of our population comes of age, they have been trained for years to snap and lunge at the mention of the name "ACLU."
Yet, when you look at the actual work the organization does, it is usually undertaken fairly and dispassionately. That really came home to me when they defended the Nazi Party's right to march in Skokie. And it was a black lawyer who took that case.
If you read it as it was written, the Constitution and Bill of Rights are fairly liberal (in the classical sense) documents. They do not support a far right-wing Glenn Beck extremist view of government and law. Because the ACLU interprets these documents in the spirit they were drafted, some of their activities may seem maddening. They can be infuriating - especially when they defend the underdog. But they do not act to restrict or remove our Constitutional rights.
Some here say that they are "anti" gun ownership. As far as I know, they have never acted to restrict anyone's gun rights. If the point is that they don't go to the mat to defend some defendant's 2nd Amendment rights, then the most you can say is that they are not uniformly "pro" 2nd A, but I don't see any case for labeling them "anti." I support the ACLU and NRA, and I believe that both organizations are very much needed.
belercous
Member
Thanks, Shockwave. I can see you do your own thinking/research, it is refreshing. I'm sure I don't need to tell you, but for the benefit of others;
I hate to destroy anyone's preconceived notions of reality, but the ACLU has defended gun owners, and not just in one isolated incident. Google it guys. Breathe freely. "Was doing good?" Still am, check the dates of the cases.
And it should be noted that the ACLU has defended Rush Limbaugh, although I'm sure he doesn't care to talk about that much. Hardly an act of a liberal (in the modern sense) organization. The ACLU defends rights, not individuals.
I hate to destroy anyone's preconceived notions of reality, but the ACLU has defended gun owners, and not just in one isolated incident. Google it guys. Breathe freely. "Was doing good?" Still am, check the dates of the cases.
And it should be noted that the ACLU has defended Rush Limbaugh, although I'm sure he doesn't care to talk about that much. Hardly an act of a liberal (in the modern sense) organization. The ACLU defends rights, not individuals.
Then why have they not removed the "collective right" argument from their national site? I believe that state chapters have fought for gun owners but the national chapter has never done this. At least nothing I could find in my searches on the web. If you have a case where the National chapter has fought for gun owners I'd very much like to see the case.
LibShooter
Member
Because that's still the position of the national organization. The case in question is basicly a property rights issue. But the fact that guns are the property in question is important. Even folks who hold opinions different from most of the card carrying American Civil Liberties Union members can get help. That's why I love the ACLU.
I realize that I was wondering 2 things:
1. Was there a case that the Natl ACLU sided with a gun owner in a gun rights case and
2. If the collective view is what the Natl' ACLU holds as true then how do they reconcile this as a property rights issue if they believe that the owner shouldn't actually "own" the gun
BTW I don't believe that the ACLU is a bad organization, in fact, the opposite. I just wish they wouldn't make the leap between the 1st and 3rd Amendments. Until they reconcile that hypocrisy I can't support them
1. Was there a case that the Natl ACLU sided with a gun owner in a gun rights case and
2. If the collective view is what the Natl' ACLU holds as true then how do they reconcile this as a property rights issue if they believe that the owner shouldn't actually "own" the gun
BTW I don't believe that the ACLU is a bad organization, in fact, the opposite. I just wish they wouldn't make the leap between the 1st and 3rd Amendments. Until they reconcile that hypocrisy I can't support them
LibShooter
Member
This is from the ACLU website:
So they're not saying individuals shouldn't own guns, just that they have no civil liberties argument with regulation by the government. In this case the firearms are really no different than any other property that can't be seized without due process.
The ACLU is neither pro-gun or anti-gun. They are gun agnostic.
Last edited:
The ACLU does support the 2nd Amendment - as they understand it. They focus on the words "Militia" and "State." The SCOTUS focused on the words "right of the people" and found the right was individual rather than collective. The ACLU disagrees
Good people can disagree with SCOTUS rulings and still be good people. I certainly disagree with many SCOTUS rulings. Does that make me a bad guy?
Good people can disagree with SCOTUS rulings and still be good people. I certainly disagree with many SCOTUS rulings. Does that make me a bad guy?
no it doesn't make YOU a bad guy but if you are an organization that happens to base your existence on upholding the rights enumerated in the Constitution, then the organization is being hypocritical.
As you say the ACLU disagrees but who interprets the law, the ACLU or the supreme court?
The possession of guns IS a civil liberties issue! KEEP & BEAR!
That's like saying we don't see possession or regulation of books as a civil liberties issue!
As you say the ACLU disagrees but who interprets the law, the ACLU or the supreme court?
The possession of guns IS a civil liberties issue! KEEP & BEAR!
That's like saying we don't see possession or regulation of books as a civil liberties issue!
LibShooter
Member
The ACLU is a private organization. The members decide how they interpert the law and which cases they will become involved in. If they decide "keep and bear arms" means the Constitution outlaws sleeves... that's their perogative. Let them try to make the pro-vest argument in court.
Only the Supreme Court's interpretation really matters.
so you are saying that they pick and choose the rights they want to defend depending on their interpretation of the Constitution regardless of what the Supreme court has decided.
You're OK with this?
Before McDonald and Heller I could see them making that argument, now not so much. Imagine an organization declaring that black people are still property after the 13th amendment was passed.
You're OK with this?
Before McDonald and Heller I could see them making that argument, now not so much. Imagine an organization declaring that black people are still property after the 13th amendment was passed.
Last edited:
Carl N. Brown
Member
OK, ACLU involvement here was not a Second Amendment issue. However, as Don B. Kates pointed out in "Restricting Handguns" in 1979, most gun laws involve serious infringement of Fourth Amendment rights. In 1970 gun control advocates Norval Morris and Gordon Hawkins advocated suspending "probable cause" under 4A to enforce a gun ban; Kates also quoted a ACLU director as saying that he supported a gun ban, but it would require such a wholesale suspension of civil liberties it would be doomed to failure.
National ACLU is not, any time soon, going to come on board with 2A advocates based on RKBA; however, state ACLU chapters do include 2A RKBA supporters and there appears to be a trickle up in progress.
National ACLU is not, any time soon, going to come on board with 2A advocates based on RKBA; however, state ACLU chapters do include 2A RKBA supporters and there appears to be a trickle up in progress.
LibShooter
Member
You're OK with this?
Sure I'm OK with this. The ACLU is an organization of private citizens who get to decide which banners they take up and which side they support.
That's covered in the First Amendment.
belercous
Member
Why exactly does it matter if the national organization supports gun rights (yet) so long as the affiliate branches do? What is the diff, and why does it matter? The ACLU relies on volunteer attorneys, not a big paid staff. And the 2nd Amen. still hasn't been hashed-out fully yet. Probably something to do with judicious use of resources. They have many other battles going on. Point being, they have sided with gun-owners, and not just once.
The argument made by Don Kates only applies to confiscation of lawfully obtained guns. The gov. can take anything you have, but they have to pay you for it. (As the ACLU successfuly argued in the New Orleans cases) The majority of gun laws do not even remotely involve the 4th Amen. To argue otherwise is a losing proposition, and besides, this is 2010, not 1979. Our understanding of the Const. is substantially different now. And Morris & Hawkins position is laughable. Which explains why it has no traction in court.
The argument made by Don Kates only applies to confiscation of lawfully obtained guns. The gov. can take anything you have, but they have to pay you for it. (As the ACLU successfuly argued in the New Orleans cases) The majority of gun laws do not even remotely involve the 4th Amen. To argue otherwise is a losing proposition, and besides, this is 2010, not 1979. Our understanding of the Const. is substantially different now. And Morris & Hawkins position is laughable. Which explains why it has no traction in court.
Symbolically it matters. It matters because the organization should be fighting for ALL rights. If they are defending Nazis and sex offenders' civil rights but not legal gun owners how do you think that looks?
That legal gun owners don't deserve to be fought for on a national level because of an outdated and wrong interpretation of the Constitution is wrong. Yes, some state's ACLU chapters fight for gun owners but chapters in NYC, Chicago, San Fran, L.A. won't start respecting our rights until the National chapter does. It's easy for the Texas chapter of the ACLU to support the 2A but in the aforementioned cities that really need that additional support, they won't be giving that support until the National chapter changes their stance.
My point is this. I live in NYC. There are very few NRA members here but many members of the ACLU. We NEED the additional support because many here view the NRA as the bad guy but the ACLU as the good guy. We need for people to see that both these organizations are together in their support for 2A. Cities like NYC, LA, Chicago don't have strong pro2A voting blocs, but they have strong civil rights voting blocs and that's what we need to put 2A sympathetic lawmakers in office.
You mention hashing out what the 2A means, we need sympathetic lawmakers to do that to our advantage and that's why we need support from the Nat'l chapter.
I also know for a fact that NYC wouldn't put as many of their horrible rules/laws in place if they felt they would be sued by the ACLU. There is much to be said for the ACLU being a legal deterrent.
That legal gun owners don't deserve to be fought for on a national level because of an outdated and wrong interpretation of the Constitution is wrong. Yes, some state's ACLU chapters fight for gun owners but chapters in NYC, Chicago, San Fran, L.A. won't start respecting our rights until the National chapter does. It's easy for the Texas chapter of the ACLU to support the 2A but in the aforementioned cities that really need that additional support, they won't be giving that support until the National chapter changes their stance.
My point is this. I live in NYC. There are very few NRA members here but many members of the ACLU. We NEED the additional support because many here view the NRA as the bad guy but the ACLU as the good guy. We need for people to see that both these organizations are together in their support for 2A. Cities like NYC, LA, Chicago don't have strong pro2A voting blocs, but they have strong civil rights voting blocs and that's what we need to put 2A sympathetic lawmakers in office.
You mention hashing out what the 2A means, we need sympathetic lawmakers to do that to our advantage and that's why we need support from the Nat'l chapter.
I also know for a fact that NYC wouldn't put as many of their horrible rules/laws in place if they felt they would be sued by the ACLU. There is much to be said for the ACLU being a legal deterrent.
Last edited:
LibShooter
Member
But they are not together on this issue. What you are saying is we NEED the ACLU national organization to agree with us on the Second Amendment. However, they do not. They say the Second Amendment does not describe an individual right to keep and bear arms, so they are not going to court over that issue. Reasonable people can and do dissagree over this.
The ACLU doesn't defend Nazis and sex offenders. They defend the Constitution, as they read it. The Nazis and sex offenders are just tools.
You know... I wish the NRA agreed with me on universal healthcare. We NEED the nation's best lobbying organization to get behind national, single payer coverage. But they probably won't.
Carl N. Brown
Member
...NRA... ...universal healthcare.... ....national, single payer coverage....
I can argue that universal healthcare insurance is not universal healthcare: it is universal insurance, which does not mean universal, affordable healthcare, which is what people really want. Insurance is why hospital tylenols and bandaids are a dollar and there are charges from the hospital for goods or services never received (like crutches when my wife had knee surgery). Hospitals get stuck with unpaid bills so they stick it to insurance companies as "deep pockets". So I am skeptical of universal healthcare insurance.
In other words, NRA involvement in issues other than guns would divide the membership and the focus of the leadership.
That's why NRA has a policy of sticking to one issue that 4 to 5 million members agree on.
I can argue that universal healthcare insurance is not universal healthcare: it is universal insurance, which does not mean universal, affordable healthcare, which is what people really want. Insurance is why hospital tylenols and bandaids are a dollar and there are charges from the hospital for goods or services never received (like crutches when my wife had knee surgery). Hospitals get stuck with unpaid bills so they stick it to insurance companies as "deep pockets". So I am skeptical of universal healthcare insurance.
In other words, NRA involvement in issues other than guns would divide the membership and the focus of the leadership.
That's why NRA has a policy of sticking to one issue that 4 to 5 million members agree on.
JN01
Member
Exactly. Tools to further a leftist agenda, which is why many people will not support them, even if the ACLU occasionally benefits them indirectly.
They can choose to ignore self-defense as a civil liberty, I can choose to ignore them.
LibShooter
Member
Exactly... and that's why the national ACLU doesn't persue Second Amendment cases.
bushmaster1313
Member
ACLU does not only support 1st Amendment
I thought it support all our civil rights
Health care is not in the NRA's agenda, the Constitution IS the ACLU agenda. As above poster says if they ignore it we'll ignore them. If you say that Nazis and sex offenders are just tools and they're defending the Constitution then why not the 2nd amendment. They are defending the Nazis' right to assemble and sex offenders right not to be punished after they served their sentence but won't defend a legal gun owners right not to have to pay to own their gun.
BTW I never said they NEED to agree but it would be nice if they weren't hypocrites. It would be in their own self interest to acknowledge the 2A, think of how many more members they would get and how much more powerful they would be. We have the NRA, SAF, GOA and many others, it would be mutually beneficial for them to stand with us and not on the sidelines
BTW I never said they NEED to agree but it would be nice if they weren't hypocrites. It would be in their own self interest to acknowledge the 2A, think of how many more members they would get and how much more powerful they would be. We have the NRA, SAF, GOA and many others, it would be mutually beneficial for them to stand with us and not on the sidelines
LibShooter
Member
The ACLU doesn't take up many 2nd Amendment issues for the same reason it does't take up many 3rd Amendment issues. There aren't many cases of troop quartering going on in the United States.
The National ACLU states on it's website that the 2nd amendment is a collective right. With that position, all those troops living in their own barracks are proof the right to keep and bear arms is strong in the U.S.
That's not how we see the Second Amendment here on The High Road, but that's how the ACLU sees it. So they see no reason to spend their time and treasure on the individuals' right to keep and bear. That's their perogative.
BHP FAN
Member
Now that the Supremes have ruled that the 2nd pertains to individual rights, it's the law of the land, not ''their perogative''...
- Status
