HeavyDuty
Member
I'm hoping so.
ACLU's updated stance on 2nd amendment rights
- Thread starter Tyrannosaurus
- Start date
- Status
I'm hoping so.
El Tejon
Member
buzz, very true, but I thought Lonnie may have inside info.
HeavyDuty
Member
Oh, really? Why don't you cite a few examples and explain how the underlying principle they were defending as "un-American".
do you guys really think the ACLU has Americas best interest in mind in every case they take? no, esp. their stance on immigration, terrorist rights, etc.
yeah, they have stood up for some things i agree with, but IMHO, they are a leftist front group.
yeah, they have stood up for some things i agree with, but IMHO, they are a leftist front group.
Haven't you heard? The ACLU gets to decide what is a civil liberty and what is anti-American. Owning firearms, for example, isn't a civil liberty.
The ACLU supports any cause or individual which will serve the primary goal of attracting attention (and thus power and money) to the ACLU. The primary constituency of the business likes the ACLU protecting certain rights and not others. So, the ACLU does what is required for the donations to keep rolling in.
Ash
Member
Civil liberties, yes, the ACLU supports many of them. They do. Yet, they are antagonistic to others.
Or, to put it this way, if I were arrested in DC for having a loaded shotgun in my home because of previous break-ins, the ACLU would not help me, would refuse to defend my civil liberties.
They would, however, defend NAMBLA (and others). If the ACLU defended all civil liberties, that would be one thing. Being selective - and supporting an organization that advocates sexual relations with underage boys while not supporting an 80 year old black women needing to defend herself in a bad neighborhood is certainly selective - means I will only view them with contempt. And no, I shall not appologize nor feel as if I have any reason to feel guilty.
They refused to support Gideons arrested to handing bibles out on a public sidewalk OUTSIDE of school grounds - you know, free speach, that is except for Gideons (I am a Gideon, by the way, and I DO NOT refer to the ACLU's successful efforts to kick Gideons out of schools).
They refuse to support the free-speach rights of Pro-Life protesters - even using RICO (which they say they deplore) against them. Free speach, except for those who the ACLU disagrees with.
Ash
Or, to put it this way, if I were arrested in DC for having a loaded shotgun in my home because of previous break-ins, the ACLU would not help me, would refuse to defend my civil liberties.
They would, however, defend NAMBLA (and others). If the ACLU defended all civil liberties, that would be one thing. Being selective - and supporting an organization that advocates sexual relations with underage boys while not supporting an 80 year old black women needing to defend herself in a bad neighborhood is certainly selective - means I will only view them with contempt. And no, I shall not appologize nor feel as if I have any reason to feel guilty.
They refused to support Gideons arrested to handing bibles out on a public sidewalk OUTSIDE of school grounds - you know, free speach, that is except for Gideons (I am a Gideon, by the way, and I DO NOT refer to the ACLU's successful efforts to kick Gideons out of schools).
They refuse to support the free-speach rights of Pro-Life protesters - even using RICO (which they say they deplore) against them. Free speach, except for those who the ACLU disagrees with.
Ash
Based on their own results oriented intepretation. The ACLU has made it clear that when they considered the potential consequences of an individual rights interpretation, they did not like what they saw. So, they decided to adopt the collective rights interpretation.
This is the same thinking that the ACLU has opposed in 1st Amendment cases, discrimination cases, ad nauseum. But when it gets them the results they want, they will take the same tact. Nothing like being utterly intellectually dishonest .
This is their new UPDATED stance
Gun Control
Why doesn't the ACLU support an individual's unlimited right to keep and bear arms?
BACKGROUND
The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.
We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.
IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.
Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.
The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.
ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." — Policy #47
ARGUMENTS, FACTS, QUOTES
"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."
— The Second Amendment to the Constitution
"Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a firearm."
— U.S. v. Warin (6th Circuit, 1976)
Unless the Constitution protects the individual's right to own all kinds of arms, there is no principled way to oppose reasonable restrictions on handguns, Uzis or semi-automatic rifles.
If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms. Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms. Yet few, if any, would argue that the Second Amendment gives individuals the unlimited right to own any weapons they please. But as soon as we allow governmental regulation of any weapons, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict arms, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction.
Gun Control
Why doesn't the ACLU support an individual's unlimited right to keep and bear arms?
BACKGROUND
The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.
We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.
IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.
Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.
The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.
ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." — Policy #47
ARGUMENTS, FACTS, QUOTES
"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."
— The Second Amendment to the Constitution
"Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a firearm."
— U.S. v. Warin (6th Circuit, 1976)
Unless the Constitution protects the individual's right to own all kinds of arms, there is no principled way to oppose reasonable restrictions on handguns, Uzis or semi-automatic rifles.
If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms. Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms. Yet few, if any, would argue that the Second Amendment gives individuals the unlimited right to own any weapons they please. But as soon as we allow governmental regulation of any weapons, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict arms, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction.
El Tejon
Member
If we can license and register books, we can license and register guns.
Wait, what? We cannot license books? Well, um, er, um, some rights are more equal than others.
Sanctimonious hypocrites!
Note the concern and cheerleading for governmental regulation of guns, but nothing but hand-wringing over the First Amendment and the holy, sacred right to child porn. Disgusting.
Gray Peterson
Member
It's the same lettering as before. Nothing changed.
I don't have specific inside information. But I can also see a "public reaction" gauge when I see it.
I don't have specific inside information. But I can also see a "public reaction" gauge when I see it.
KBintheSLC
Member
You are absolutely right. The ACLU is nothing but a bunch of blood sucking leaches who get stiffies from conducting outlandish lawsuits.
It defies logic -
You have an organization that is supposed to protect civil liberties and individual rights.
You have the Supreme Court - they read the Constitution and come up with the opinion "Yep, looks like we been going about this all wrong. This is an individual right."
Rather than celebrating the triumph of liberty, the organization comes back with "Well we know that the court has ruled that this is an individual right and we're all for those. But we think the court was wrong. You don't have this right, even though you and the Supreme Court think you do."
Hypocrisy at it's finest.
The lovely thing about anyone who disagrees with the decision - what they have to say doesn't matter in the least.
The Consitution is what it is. The court has ruled. The decision is already made and it's in our favor.
They can disagree as much as they want but it won't change the law. All we have to do now is make sure that "reasonable" really does mean reasonable.
You have an organization that is supposed to protect civil liberties and individual rights.
You have the Supreme Court - they read the Constitution and come up with the opinion "Yep, looks like we been going about this all wrong. This is an individual right."
Rather than celebrating the triumph of liberty, the organization comes back with "Well we know that the court has ruled that this is an individual right and we're all for those. But we think the court was wrong. You don't have this right, even though you and the Supreme Court think you do."
Hypocrisy at it's finest.
The lovely thing about anyone who disagrees with the decision - what they have to say doesn't matter in the least.
The Consitution is what it is. The court has ruled. The decision is already made and it's in our favor.
They can disagree as much as they want but it won't change the law. All we have to do now is make sure that "reasonable" really does mean reasonable.
jonmerritt
Member.
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2007
- Messages
- 463
The ACLU should be disbanded. They no longer represent there charter.
One of us made the news.
SuperNaut (post 6).
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=68695
And following this post, I am sure some will again attack our friends at WND.
SuperNaut (post 6).
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=68695
And following this post, I am sure some will again attack our friends at WND.
The ACLU has actually helped protect gun owners in at least one case, something you wouldn't expect from reading this thread. I abhor their decision re: Heller. and I posted a comment to that effect on their blog. We need to know about the case that the ACLU joined with gun owners, instead of just going with the hype. Here is the case I was talking about. I don't know if there were any others.
ACLU in Texas helps protect traveling gun owners
http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/04/07/aclu-in-texas-helps-protect-traveling-gun-owners/
The ACLU Defends Gun Rights
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119544.html
********
My comment on the ACLU blog:
July 1st, 2008 at 10:39 pm
I am sorry to say that the ACLU has disappointed me. I have consistently defended you to my firearm owning friends. I pointed out that both you and the NRA are defending the Bill of Rights and our civil liberties, both with equal zeal. The NRA was taking care of defending the one amendment you were not defending. While Miller gave you cover, your ignoring the 2nd Amendment was permissible.
Your are refusing to accept the Supreme Court decision in Heller, which is now the law of the land. There can now be no reason for this outside of the fact that you do not believe Americans deserve to have the right to keep and bear arms, no matter what the law is. I no longer find it in my heart to defend you guys. You are just as bad as the Bush Administration, picking and choosing what rights protected by the Constitution they will let us have.
I used to have hope in the ACLU. I am very sorry to discover that I was mistaken.
ACLU in Texas helps protect traveling gun owners
http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/04/07/aclu-in-texas-helps-protect-traveling-gun-owners/
The ACLU Defends Gun Rights
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119544.html
********
My comment on the ACLU blog:
July 1st, 2008 at 10:39 pm
I am sorry to say that the ACLU has disappointed me. I have consistently defended you to my firearm owning friends. I pointed out that both you and the NRA are defending the Bill of Rights and our civil liberties, both with equal zeal. The NRA was taking care of defending the one amendment you were not defending. While Miller gave you cover, your ignoring the 2nd Amendment was permissible.
Your are refusing to accept the Supreme Court decision in Heller, which is now the law of the land. There can now be no reason for this outside of the fact that you do not believe Americans deserve to have the right to keep and bear arms, no matter what the law is. I no longer find it in my heart to defend you guys. You are just as bad as the Bush Administration, picking and choosing what rights protected by the Constitution they will let us have.
I used to have hope in the ACLU. I am very sorry to discover that I was mistaken.
Give your money to the Cato institute instead! Cato is a much better alternative to the ACLU, and Robert Levey, who masterminded the whole DC v Heller case works there. Give money to an ally, not the enemy.
Here's how ludicrous the ACLU's position is (where books have been substituted for guns):
Why doesn't the ACLU support an individual's unlimited right to read books?
BACKGROUND
The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the First Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a book or other written works. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the First Amendment many times.
We believe that the constitutional right to read is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain educated militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require books much more powerful than Poor Richard's Almanac. The ACLU therefore believes that the First Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own books or other reading materials nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of book ownership, such as licensing and registration.
IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of book control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of book ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register books.
Most opponents of book control concede that the First Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own Mein Kampf, Communist Manifesto or books on how to build a nuclear bomb. Yet these, like Hello Kitty Yummy Coloring Book, are books.
The question therefore is not whether to restrict book ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.
ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the First Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to read books applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-educated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of books by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of books." — Policy #47
ARGUMENTS, FACTS, QUOTES
"A well educated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
— The First Amendment to the Constitution
"Since the First Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to read books, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a book."
— U.S. v. Warin (6th Circuit, 1976)
Unless the Constitution protects the individual's right to own all kinds of books, there is no principled way to oppose reasonable restrictions on books, magazines or websites.
If indeed the First Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to read books in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess historical warfare books, tactical manuals, marksmanship books and even books on how to build nuclear warheads, for they, like Hello Kitty, A Storybook Adventure, are books. Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such books. Yet few, if any, would argue that the First Amendment gives individuals the unlimited right to own any books they please. But as soon as we allow governmental regulation of any books, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict books, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction.
__________________
Here's how ludicrous the ACLU's position is (where books have been substituted for guns):
Why doesn't the ACLU support an individual's unlimited right to read books?
BACKGROUND
The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the First Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a book or other written works. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the First Amendment many times.
We believe that the constitutional right to read is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain educated militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require books much more powerful than Poor Richard's Almanac. The ACLU therefore believes that the First Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own books or other reading materials nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of book ownership, such as licensing and registration.
IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of book control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of book ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register books.
Most opponents of book control concede that the First Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own Mein Kampf, Communist Manifesto or books on how to build a nuclear bomb. Yet these, like Hello Kitty Yummy Coloring Book, are books.
The question therefore is not whether to restrict book ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.
ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the First Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to read books applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-educated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of books by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of books." — Policy #47
ARGUMENTS, FACTS, QUOTES
"A well educated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
— The First Amendment to the Constitution
"Since the First Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to read books, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a book."
— U.S. v. Warin (6th Circuit, 1976)
Unless the Constitution protects the individual's right to own all kinds of books, there is no principled way to oppose reasonable restrictions on books, magazines or websites.
If indeed the First Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to read books in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess historical warfare books, tactical manuals, marksmanship books and even books on how to build nuclear warheads, for they, like Hello Kitty, A Storybook Adventure, are books. Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such books. Yet few, if any, would argue that the First Amendment gives individuals the unlimited right to own any books they please. But as soon as we allow governmental regulation of any books, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict books, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction.
__________________
****UPDATE*****
I just received this response from the ACLU:
Dear Mr. XXXX,
Thank you for contacting the American Civil Liberties Union. I’m glad you were able to take the time to contact us about your concern and for the opportunity to respond.
As you know, 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."
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.
The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's 2008 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. 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.
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.
I understand that you are deeply concerned about this issue, but I would point out that by no means do we expect our supporters and friends to agree with us 100% of the time. Our tent is far too big and our docket and agenda are much too full for that to be realistic. We are working on so many other important issues; for example the recently passed Congressional bill on the issue of warantless surveillance, our work to secure the rights for constitutional treatment of detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay, and our work with people who were in police custody at the time of the Katrina Hurricane and were abandoned by corrections officials.
Our mission remains the same as it has been for decades. Today, we defend the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and we reject the Bush administration’s claim that we must give up our fundamental American liberties if we want to keep our country safe. I hope that the ACLU can continue to count on your support to address especially at this critical time for civil liberties.
(this part was in a different font)Thank you so much for getting in touch and sharing your thoughts on this issue. I hope that we can find a way to work together on other issues of great import.
I just received this response from the ACLU:
Dear Mr. XXXX,
Thank you for contacting the American Civil Liberties Union. I’m glad you were able to take the time to contact us about your concern and for the opportunity to respond.
As you know, 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."
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.
The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's 2008 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. 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.
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.
I understand that you are deeply concerned about this issue, but I would point out that by no means do we expect our supporters and friends to agree with us 100% of the time. Our tent is far too big and our docket and agenda are much too full for that to be realistic. We are working on so many other important issues; for example the recently passed Congressional bill on the issue of warantless surveillance, our work to secure the rights for constitutional treatment of detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay, and our work with people who were in police custody at the time of the Katrina Hurricane and were abandoned by corrections officials.
Our mission remains the same as it has been for decades. Today, we defend the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and we reject the Bush administration’s claim that we must give up our fundamental American liberties if we want to keep our country safe. I hope that the ACLU can continue to count on your support to address especially at this critical time for civil liberties.
(this part was in a different font)Thank you so much for getting in touch and sharing your thoughts on this issue. I hope that we can find a way to work together on other issues of great import.
They modified their stance just a little, tiny, miniscule bit. But yes, a total crock. I wish I had been able to record the conversation I had with the ACLU rep who called trying to get me to re-up last week.
In the poor guy's defense he said he agreed that the ACLU stance on Heller is crap, but that he "wasn't in charge."
In the poor guy's defense he said he agreed that the ACLU stance on Heller is crap, but that he "wasn't in charge."
- Status
