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.
__________________